Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 184
Like Tree80Likes

Thread: Gyron Aether Theory (GAT)

  1. #1 Gyron Aether Theory (GAT) 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    The manuscript is on-line here: viXra.org/abs/1311.0060

    I ask from you only what I grant others - to read it until you find a fatal flaw of some kind, and then let me know about it. The fatal flaw can be erroneous reasoning, ill-defined starting points, or a simple misunderstanding of the facts of reality. Usually with such "crackpot" theories, one need not read long before coming to such a flaw.

    The philosophical impetus and logical reasoning is as follows (Note: many of these are not consistent with some interpretations of quantum mechanics):

    1) Things exist.
    2) Things must exist in a certain way, i.e., have a particular nature. A=A.
    3) To exist, at the most fundamental level, a thing must be either physical, i.e., have a 3D boundary between self and not-self, between itself and empty space, or it must be non-physical, i.e., "spiritual."
    4) Modern neuroscience has increasingly shown that the only "spiritual" things we've encountered - our own consciousness and that of other animals - is based entirely in the physical - the behavior of networks of neurons in the brain.
    5) Reasoning along with the ancient Greek Atomists, because we know that the stuff of life can be broken down into small, invisible parts (i.e., boiling water into invisible vapor, then condensing it again into visible/tangible water; burning things into smoke; cutting things smaller and smaller while they still retain their properties, etc.), that process of division cannot be infinite, else there'd be no ultimate basis of anything, as the specific shapes and motions of the corpuscles needed to provide cohesion would be lost. Besides, we know from the past 200+ years of physics that atoms and molecules exist, along with the constituent parts, electrons, protons and neutrons, and the latters' subcomponents of quarks, gluons, etc.
    6) it is entirely possible that all the particles and forces we observe, including the Higgs particle and its associated Higgs field, are manifestations of the interactions of much smaller fundamental corpuscles that correspond to the "atomos" (that which cannot be cut) of the ancient Greeks.

    I, for one, no more believe in disembodied energy than I do in disembodied spirits. The theory I present is totally testable and comprehensible, being completely defined and completely mechanical. It is Cartesian in that the only ultimate force is one of collision and recoil - i.e., direct impacts. Like Descartes, this theory can state, "Give me extension [3D objects extended in space] and motion, and I will create the universe." It is unlike Descartes' system in that most of space is empty, rather than a "plenum" filled with various corpuscles.

    The theory's concept of the gyron - the fundamental, needle-like corpuscles - and the toroidal vortex that spits some of them out, like arrows - belong to the late Frank Meno. He spent ~55 years of a life of 79 devoted to developing his (highly mathematical, but flawed, in my view) version of the theory.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,901
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    The manuscript is on-line here: viXra.org/abs/1311.0060
    The theory is testable at both the cosmological and subatomic levels, by data fitting and 3-D animation simulations, respectively.
    I.e. fudging & cherry-picking (data picking) and plenty of MUS (simulations) 1.


    1 MUS = Made Up Shit. GIGO!


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    If you really have something to present, don't give us a link so some other site (I am not alone in refusing to visit links from people I don't know). Rather, present your information in a manner formatted for this forum. If you're not willing to put in the work to offer up an intelligent and cohesive argument, then I'm not putting in the work to discuss it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    If you really have something to present, don't give us a link so some other site (I am not alone in refusing to visit links from people I don't know).

    The link itself leads to a 40 pages long PDF document, written by Harold Kyriazi who, according to the document, is connected to the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. This implies that the introductory thread of this member is genuine (as the name yields results in Google Scholar).

    I have already raised the question whether or not viXra is a trustworthy source in another thread.
    It also raises the question why this paper does not appear in a peer-reviewed journal (despite its length).

    I cannot comment on the validity of the hypothesis as raised here (and in other posts).
    Last edited by Cogito Ergo Sum; February 10th, 2014 at 05:17 PM.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Okay, in that case I should clarify; DO NOT copy/paste a 40 page paper on to the forum.

    This is not a place for vetting your work, but rather a place for brief discussion of ideas. I'd suggest presenting some core ideas and discussing their validity. No one here is going to commit to reading 40 pages of something they consider as credible as science fiction.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    we know that the stuff of life can be broken down into small, invisible parts ... that process of division cannot be infinite, else there'd be no ultimate basis of anything
    a) There is no logical reason that the process can't be infinite. The universe doesn't care whether you like it or not.

    b) On the other hand, we appear to have identified a number of fundamental particles (and their interactions). So, problem solved.

    including the Higgs particle and its associated Higgs field
    What is the modern crackpots obsession with the Higgs field? (Along with the usual crackpot obsession with aether, vortices, gyres, and the rejection of the scientific method.) <sigh>

    The theory I present is totally testable
    Then please show one quantitative prediction from your model that can be compared with observation that will distinguish your theory from standard theories.

    the only ultimate force is one of collision and recoil - i.e., direct impacts
    You do realise that these "direct impacts" are due to the electrostatic repulsion ("at a distance") of the electrons in the atoms?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    The manuscript is on-line here: viXra.org/abs/1311.0060
    The theory is testable at both the cosmological and subatomic levels, by data fitting and 3-D animation simulations, respectively.
    I.e. fudging & cherry-picking (data picking) and plenty of MUS (simulations) 1.


    1 MUS = Made Up Shit. GIGO!
    Cute. But the data-fitting I had in mind involved constraining the model by getting it to match *one* thing, and then, once thus constrained, see if it also matches other facts. And, the "made up shit" also involves establishing similar constraints (such as the fundamental corpuscles' precise shape, spin rates, and spatial density).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    This implies that the introductory thread of this member is genuine (as the name yields results in Google Scholar).
    Apart from the bit where he claims "My main interests here will be theoretical physics" as he obviously has no knowledge or interest in physics, preferring to make stuff up.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Okay, in that case I should clarify; DO NOT copy/paste a 40 page paper on to the forum.

    This is not a place for vetting your work, but rather a place for brief discussion of ideas. I'd suggest presenting some core ideas and discussing their validity. No one here is going to commit to reading 40 pages of something they consider as credible as science fiction.
    Thanks for the reasonable request. (Really, I do sincerely appreciate the civility.) I'll post a more specific blurb on the key issue - how these putative fundamental particles may engage in a self-sorting process (of like-oriented, gyroscopically stabilized spinners) that leads to a direct violation of the (purely empirical) 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,524
    And that's the crackpot home run. If you disagree with the second law of thermodynamics YOU ARE WRONG.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    a) There is no logical reason that the process can't be infinite. The universe doesn't care whether you like it or not.
    Max Planck, for one, though he liked the atomist idea, was so convinced in the immutability of the law of increasing entropy that he felt matter had to be continuous. So, yes, in the context of some non-atomistic philosophical viewpoint - which I argue is untenable and spiritualistic - it could be infinite.

    b) On the other hand, we appear to have identified a number of fundamental particles (and their interactions). So, problem solved.
    You do realize, I hope, that you have no clue what these "fundamental particles" actually consist of. (Sorry to end with a preposition there.) Some seem to think that electrons and other leptons may be "point particles" (i.e., with no definite spatial extension at all).


    What is the modern crackpots obsession with the Higgs field? (Along with the usual crackpot obsession with aether, vortices, gyres, and the rejection of the scientific method.) <sigh>
    I, for one, certainly am not obsessed with it. And, I don't appreciate all the ad hominems.

    Then please show one quantitative prediction from your model that can be compared with observation that will distinguish your theory from standard theories.
    I wish I were capable of doing the simulations that could test the hard conclusion that gravity becomes repulsive at large distances. But, I'm not a professional cosmologist. *Someone* should be able to test it, though. And, I admit such simulations would also have to be tied in to other explorations regarding the proposed mechanism to underlie Mordehai Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics hypothesis alternative to dark matter. But, that's the nature of the beast. It's messy, but something competent researchers should be able to handle.

    You do realise that these "direct impacts" are due to the electrostatic repulsion ("at a distance") of the electrons in the atoms?
    Nope. In this world view there is no such thing as "action at a distance." EM and all other forces, in this view, are due to myriad impact collisions of organized flow patterns (in the vortices for which you seem to have some innate distaste and scorn) of fundamental corpuscles (here termed "gyrons").
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    And that's the crackpot home run. If you disagree with the second law of thermodynamics YOU ARE WRONG.
    Nope. It's purely empirical. Boltzmann himself noted that it is all dependent upon the assumption of "molecular chaos" (i.e., that at the micro level there is no ordering process at work). Certainly that assumption has proved to be reasonable regarding all the gases we've dealt with. I think, though, that quantum mechanics had to change some of the classical statistical mechanics rules to explain superfluidity of liquid helium, for example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    If you really have something to present, don't give us a link so some other site (I am not alone in refusing to visit links from people I don't know). Rather, present your information in a manner formatted for this forum. If you're not willing to put in the work to offer up an intelligent and cohesive argument, then I'm not putting in the work to discuss it.
    vixra is arxiv spelled backwards to try and seem more credible I'd assume.

    :EDIT:

    I just read my own sentence lol! Wiki them if interested.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,524
    Nope, disagreeing with the second law is one of the standard definitions of "crank", I'll leave you to your ignorant crackpottery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    You do realize, I hope, that you have no clue what these "fundamental particles" actually consist of.
    I'm never sure what people expect as an answer to that sort of question. What do you expect electrons to consist of? The are fundamental; they don't consist of anything, that is the point. That is what "fundamental" means. What do you expect them to be made of: to be carved out of wood with brass finials?

    Sorry to end with a preposition there.
    Don't apologise. It is an arbitrary rule that someone made up and others seem to think says something about English grammar. It doesn't. [This odd "zombie rule" apparently originated as a passing comment in John Dryden's "Defense of the Epilogue" (1672)]

    Some seem to think that electrons and other leptons may be "point particles" (i.e., with no definite spatial extension at all).
    They are certainly modelled that way. And, so far, have no measurable size. So?

    I wish I were capable of doing the simulations that could test the hard conclusion that gravity becomes repulsive at large distances.
    If you have a model then you must have the math that would allow you to do this without needing to do a simulation.

    If you don't have a model, on what basis are you making the assertion?

    *Someone* should be able to test it, though.
    Why would they bother?

    And, I admit such simulations would also have to be tied in to other explorations regarding the proposed mechanism to underlie Mordehai Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics hypothesis alternative to dark matter.
    There is a lot of work going on to look at that and similar solutions. The best I have seen so far is that it can reduce the amount of dark matter required but cannot eliminate it.

    Nope. In this world view there is no such thing as "action at a distance."
    So you say. But you appear to have no math, no data and no evidence to support this claim.

    EM and all other forces, in this view, are due to myriad impact collisions of organized flow patterns (in the vortices for which you seem to have some innate distaste and scorn) of fundamental corpuscles (here termed "gyrons").
    And, to bounce your initial comment back at you, what are these flows and corpuscles composed of?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Comment: This concept has (appropriately) been posted in the Personal Theories and Alternative Ideas sub-forum. Two rules apply here, one implicit, the other - I believe - explicit.

    1) Regardless of how many cranks, crackpots, deluded fools and intellectually constrained persons have posted nonsense in the forum in the past, members will not assume that new posters fit this category. They will not generate a knee jerk reaction to ideas that are different, or because if the use of phrases that are often associated with the aforementioned fools. Members will accord new postings of this nature a fair hearing and shall remain polite in their interactions. Ad hominems and the like will be greeted with moderator actions, including suspensions.

    2) Those proposing the new ideas are expected (required) to provide justification for their proposals. This is a science forum and the scientific method should be followed. Therefore, in this instance, we require some evidence, or more tightly reasoned argument to justify the currently unfounded assertions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    The manuscript is on-line here: viXra.org/abs/1311.0060
    If you think this is a viable theory, have you submitted this to a peer-reviewed journal? If not, why not?

    And, as an aside, this sort of thing does get published in serious peer-reviewed journals occasionally: Life | Free Full-Text | Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    What is a gyron? Can it be detected, and if so, why hasn't it been previously classified in decades worth of particle physics experiments? If it cannot be detected, why do you state it has a needle-like characteristic and why do you consider it "fundamental"? How does it express itself, then, and what effect does it have?

    To be fair, casting doubt upon thermodynamics, a very well supported scientific theory, is usually the halmark of a crackpot. If you have a legittimate claim, go ahead, but an off-hand comment isn't going to be met kindly.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    If you really have something to present, don't give us a link so some other site (I am not alone in refusing to visit links from people I don't know).

    The link itself leads to 40 pages long PDF document, written by Harold Kyriazi who, according to the document, is connected to the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. This implies that the introductory thread of this member is genuine (as the name yields results in Google Scholar).
    Thanks for the vetting.

    I have already raised the question whether or not viXra is a trustworthy source in another thread.
    It also raises the question why this paper does not appear in a peer-reviewed journal (despite its length).
    I mentioned recently in a post on another thread that arXiv (not viXra! - my mistake) sat on it for 5 weeks before telling me their moderators rejected as as being not ready for publication in a journal (for unstated reasons). The only journal I tried was Science, which rejected it in less than a day, as (IIRC) "not the kind of work we publish." I was thinking about The Journal of Theoretical Physics, but some brief correspondence with their editor was not encouraging (he simply stopped responding after I asked whether they have a policy - formal or informal - of rejecting aether theories out of hand). The figure legends really are way too long, but the subject really demands book-length treatment. But who would read it? Alas, professional physicists think to a man that the aether has been disproven, when in fact it was merely set aside in favor of a mathematical/descriptive rather than explanatory physics, due to no one having come up with a workable concept.
    Last edited by hkyriazi; January 9th, 2014 at 08:56 PM. Reason: egregious error
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    The manuscript is on-line here: viXra.org/abs/1311.0060
    If you think this is a viable theory, have you submitted this to a peer-reviewed journal? If not, why not?

    And, as an aside, this sort of thing does get published in serious peer-reviewed journals occasionally: Life | Free Full-Text | Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
    RE my short submission history, see above response. RE possible journals to submit to, "Life" doesn't seem appropriate. "Crackpot" journals, like Physics Essays (in which Frank Meno published all of his papers on gyron aether theory), I have no interest in. viXra.org, contains, I agree, almost entirely crackpot stuff (i.e., easily disproved or obviously ill-conceived), but at least there I was able to get it on-line to a place where those interested in physics *might* find it, and where I could point friends and acquaintances. And, viXra's administrators are very prompt and professional. I admire them and their commitment to publish any apparently sincere attempt at science. They feel it should be up to the readers to separate the wheat from the chaff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    You do realize, I hope, that you have no clue what these "fundamental particles" actually consist of.
    I'm never sure what people expect as an answer to that sort of question. What do you expect electrons to consist of? The are fundamental; they don't consist of anything, that is the point. That is what "fundamental" means. What do you expect them to be made of: to be carved out of wood with brass finials?
    Recently (I've posted so much that I'm not sure whether it's here or on the related thread of "Why Push Gravity Doesn't Work"), I mentioned the philosophical basis for the theory. I won't repeat it here, but the short answer is that things must, at the most fundamental level, be either physical (3D objects with a boundary) or spiritual. I don't see any other alternatives, and I think the concept of "spirits" is nonsense (as is that of disembodied "energy"). (I didn't go into that in detail, but to my mind, even a "spirit" would have to have moving parts to be unlike a non-thinking rock, and thus would have to have a material basis. Modern neuroscience, which is my professional field, has shown conclusively that mind derives from brain.)

    Sorry to end with a preposition there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Don't apologise. It is an arbitrary rule that someone made up and others seem to think says something about English grammar. It doesn't. [This odd "zombie rule" apparently originated as a passing comment in John Dryden's "Defense of the Epilogue" (1672)]
    Thanks for that. I'll check into it. (I've a female friend who goes nuts over that, so I might be able to brighten her day with this tidbit.)

    I wish I were capable of doing the simulations that could test the hard conclusion that gravity becomes repulsive at large distances.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If you have a model then you must have the math that would allow you to do this without needing to do a simulation.
    I was thinking of those computer simulations of the evolution of the large scale structure of the universe - for which brute force, not analysis, is required.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If you don't have a model, on what basis are you making the assertion?
    The concept - or model - that explains gravity on a purely mechanical basis. (See elsewhere.)

    *Someone* should be able to test it, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Why would they bother?
    Hopefully the theory will find not necessarily adherents or defenders, but at least physicists/cosmologists who concede that the theory might be correct and is worth looking into.

    Nope. In this world view there is no such thing as "action at a distance."
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    So you say. But you appear to have no math, no data and no evidence to support this claim.
    This is pure philosophy (i.e., simple logic in my view). See one of my recent posts. I'm also thinking of posting relevant parts of Samuel Tolver Preston's 1875 book on "The Physics of the Ether", where he, in my view, logically demolishes "action at a distance" as being completely unscientific. He equated it with "occult qualities," which, if they can be permitted in this instance, could be used in all instances to "explain" anything and everything - i.e, to really explain nothing on the basis of more basic, intuitively comprehensible notions (such as impact and recoil).

    EM and all other forces, in this view, are due to myriad impact collisions of organized flow patterns (in the vortices for which you seem to have some innate distaste and scorn) of fundamental corpuscles (here termed "gyrons").
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And, to bounce your initial comment back at you, what are these flows and corpuscles composed of?
    These corpuscles (shown in Figure 1) are proposed to have a specific size (equal to or smaller in length than Planck length) and 3D shape, unlike the "fundamental" particles of contemporary physics, whose behavior is merely described (admittedly quite accurately - I consider quantum mechanics to have uncovered aspects of the geometry of the vacuum's matrix of vortices and its interactions with the vortices of matter). The vortex flow patterns, shown in Figure 2, are explained (as well as I'm currently able) in the manuscript text and figure legend.
    Last edited by hkyriazi; January 7th, 2014 at 04:07 AM. Reason: removed my previous addition!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Alas, professional physicists think to a man that the aether has been disproven, when in fact it was merely set aside in favor of a mathematical/descriptive rather than explanatory physics, due to no one having come up with a workable concept.
    I would consider it fair to be apprehensive when the word aether comes up, since the concept had been dismissed coming on 100 years ago. You'll need something either incremental but airtight, or an absolutely ground-shattering experimental result, a la Michaelson-Morely, to be taken seriously. Also, I've been operating under the assumption that there is only one kind of physics, the useful kind. Sure, you might be able to come up with the most wonderful, elegant explanation. But if you can't demonstrate, physically and mathematically, what you describe, then you can't really link it to the universe or make further predictions about the universe. You're just stuck with your nice explanation. No actual progress made.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I won't repeat it here, but the short answer is that things must, at the most fundamental level, be either physical (3D objects with a boundary) or spiritual.
    The universe doesn't really care what you believe "must" be. There is a long history of science overturning "common sense" or "logical" ideas. You should learn to be more open minded rather than trying to impose your ideas on the data.

    Modern neuroscience, which is my professional field, has shown conclusively that mind derives from brain.
    There are, of course, many neuroscientists who disagree.

    These corpuscles (shown in Figure 1) are proposed to have a specific size (equal to or smaller in length than Planck length) and 3D shape, unlike the "fundamental" particles of contemporary physics
    Yes, but what are they "composed" of? That was your objection to current physics. If it turns out that the currently known fundamental particles actyally do have a physical size (albeit smaller than we can currently detect) would that overcome your objection?

    I was thinking of those computer simulations of the evolution of the large scale structure of the universe - for which brute force, not analysis, is required.
    Don't you think you should learn to take baby steps before attempting a marathon? GR was tested on simple observations (gravitational lensing, precession of Mercury, etc.) before anyone attempted to derive a solution describing the entire universe.

    However, a mathematical model describing the evolution of the universe was developed in less than 10 years and tested decades before it was possible to run computer simulations.

    To put it simply, you have your approach ass-backwards.

    This is pure philosophy (i.e., simple logic in my view).
    And that is the problem. You are, quite simply, not doing science. Your inability/refusal to compare your model to the real world is part of the problem. One can come up with any explanation at all based on "pure logic" - just look at all the "personal theories" posted on forums like this. Although some have features in common, there are many differences between them and most of them are mutually contradictory. And yet they are all based on "pure logic" (i.e. the proponent's personal beliefs).

    So, how do we decide which of all these thousands of ideas might possibly be useful descriptions of reality? We need some way of testing them. This needs to be based on objective data (because they are all "true" on a subjective basis already). So, all proponents of a model need to come up with objective, quantitative predictions that can be tested against observation. Without that it is just yet another story.

    Which is why no one is going to take it seriously and do your math / testing for you - why should they choose your idea over the countless others?

    I consider quantum mechanics to have uncovered aspects of the geometry of the vacuum's matrix of vortices and its interactions with the vortices of matter
    Can you show, mathematically, that the equations of quantum mechanics describe a "matrix of vortices"?

    The vortex flow patterns, shown in Figure 2, are explained (as well as I'm currently able) in the manuscript text and figure legend.
    It would be more useful if you could show this mathematically, including consistency with observational data.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Hopefully the theory will find not necessarily adherents or defenders, but at least physicists/cosmologists who concede that the theory might be correct and is worth looking into.
    Look, I don't mean to be rude or harsh, but I can tell you with a pretty high degree of confidence that this isn't going to happen. We already have a very good model of gravity ( experimentally verified, mathematically rigorous, and well investigated ), so there is really no reason or motivation to replace it with anything else at this stage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Alas, professional physicists think to a man that the aether has been disproven, when in fact it was merely set aside in favor of a mathematical/descriptive rather than explanatory physics, due to no one having come up with a workable concept.
    I would consider it fair to be apprehensive when the word aether comes up, since the concept had been dismissed coming on 100 years ago. You'll need something either incremental but airtight, or an absolutely ground-shattering experimental result, a la Michaelson-Morely, to be taken seriously. Also, I've been operating under the assumption that there is only one kind of physics, the useful kind. Sure, you might be able to come up with the most wonderful, elegant explanation. But if you can't demonstrate, physically and mathematically, what you describe, then you can't really link it to the universe or make further predictions about the universe. You're just stuck with your nice explanation. No actual progress made.

    All very reasonable, but I do wish folks would realize the aether was dismissed not because it was disproven, but because no one came up with a workable theory. I have recently (about 6 hours ago) addressed the questions about prediction and mathematics in one of the other threads (probably that on "Why push gravity doesn't work"). I respectfully request that you read those other posts, and if that doesn't satisfy you that this theory is scientific (being testable and falsifiable), we can take it up again.
    Last edited by hkyriazi; January 7th, 2014 at 10:25 AM. Reason: typo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    All very reasonable, but I do wish folks would realize the aether was dismissed not because it was disproven, but because no one came up with a workable theory.
    As well as the fact there is no evidence for it, there is also the fact that it is completely unnecessary.

    Why not try and revive phlogiston and the four humours while you are at it?

    I have recently (about 6 hours ago) addressed the questions about prediction and mathematics in one of the other threads
    Could you provide a link to that because all I have seen you do is dodge and avoid the necessity for objective testing of your "theory".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I won't repeat it here, but the short answer is that things must, at the most fundamental level, be either physical (3D objects with a boundary) or spiritual.
    The universe doesn't really care what you believe "must" be. There is a long history of science overturning "common sense" or "logical" ideas. You should learn to be more open minded rather than trying to impose your ideas on the data.
    I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I mention in the manuscript the Greek philosopher Parmenides, who argued that "only that can exist which can also be thought." I take this to mean that if one cannot picture a concept, it is not your mind that is at fault, but the concept, which is poorly conceived.

    In order to proceed more efficiently - and I do appreciate your traveling with me thus far - would it be too much at this point to ask that you at least read the introduction to my manuscript, and perhaps even continue reading at least until you find a fatal flaw? The reason I say this is that, in that introduction, I mention that "non-materialists" quite reasonably point out that it may reasonably be considered naive for us to "assume that the very basis of existence will be just a miniature version of the macroscopic world of our experience." So, I am open-minded at least to the point of understanding your point.

    Modern neuroscience, which is my professional field, has shown conclusively that mind derives from brain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There are, of course, many neuroscientists who disagree.
    Granted, there are some very religious neuroscientists. Perhaps I should've been careful in my statement.

    These corpuscles (shown in Figure 1) are proposed to have a specific size (equal to or smaller in length than Planck length) and 3D shape, unlike the "fundamental" particles of contemporary physics
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Yes, but what are they "composed" of? That was your objection to current physics. If it turns out that the currently known fundamental particles actyally do have a physical size (albeit smaller than we can currently detect) would that overcome your objection?
    In that case, current physics would have abandoned at least part of its spiritualism, and adopted some part of atomism. And then it would have some problems, because it would have to abandon its uncertainty principle, most of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, have to solve the question of how those particles shrink in the direction of motion at relativistic speeds, etc.

    I was thinking of those computer simulations of the evolution of the large scale structure of the universe - for which brute force, not analysis, is required.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Don't you think you should learn to take baby steps before attempting a marathon? GR was tested on simple observations (gravitational lensing, precession of Mercury, etc.) before anyone attempted to derive a solution describing the entire universe.
    Yes, but even though I've taken math through matrix algebra, feel quite comfortable with Fourier analysis, and have taken courses (and made A's) in Newtonian mechanics, EM theory, and modern physics, I honestly don't have a clue how even to approach the mathematics of the advance of Mercury's perihelion, nor could I calculate it for GAT theory even if I did, because I don't know how matter vortices move through the proposed matrix of vacuum vortices (the system is highly non-linear, with constant positive and negative feedback). The theory is still in its infancy. Is it too much to ask that a new paradigm not be required to be born fully formed, like Venus on the Halfshell, before it can be considered at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    However, a mathematical model describing the evolution of the universe was developed in less than 10 years and tested decades before it was possible to run computer simulations.
    Perhaps I'm quibbling, but it seems to me that SR and GR are merely mathematical descriptions - admittedly extremely accurate ones - and neither explanatory (in the sense of being based on more basic, accepted ideas - see my mention elsewhere of Samuel Tolver Preston's intro to his 1875 book, "The Physics of the Ether," where he demolishes the notion of "action at a distance," showing it to be non-scientific mysticism) nor deserving of the label "model." To me, a model is something one can picture in one's mind. I was heartened recently to learn that Preston got his PhD under Ludwig Boltzmann in 1894 in Munich, as both of these guys are, for different reasons, heroes of mine. I previously had no idea they'd even met.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    To put it simply, you have your approach ass-backwards.
    I might've agreed with you had I not met Frank Meno 32 years ago, and seen that a logical, bottom-up approach, that begins with the question "What can possibly lie at the base of existence?", actually seems to get us somewhere. Of course, any bottom-up derived theory must also agree with the top-down evidence of the senses. And I tried to show in the manuscript that at least, to a first approximation, it can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Hopefully the theory will find not necessarily adherents or defenders, but at least physicists/cosmologists who concede that the theory might be correct and is worth looking into.
    Look, I don't mean to be rude or harsh, but I can tell you with a pretty high degree of confidence that this isn't going to happen. We already have a very good model of gravity ( experimentally verified, mathematically rigorous, and well investigated ), so there is really no reason or motivation to replace it with anything else at this stage.
    Please see the 2nd to the last part of my 11:04 am response to Strange.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I know people who cannot understand how the composition of plagiocalse feldspars in a silicate melt will vary as crystallisation proceeds with cooling. They are, to use your words, unable to picture the concept. However, contrary to your claim, the fault is very much in their minds. The same applies here. Your inability to understand/grasp/accept a concept is not a reflection on the concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Nope, disagreeing with the second law is one of the standard definitions of "crank", I'll leave you to your ignorant crackpottery.
    So, you believe in guilt by association? Because lots of crackpots spout ideas about perpetual motion machines, it's wrong of me to assert that a universe (infinite Euclidean space) filled with elastically-colliding fundamental corpuscles is itself a perpetual motion machine? And that axially-spinning, gyroscopically-stabilized needle-like fundamental corpuscles cannot engage in any surprising behavior? I assume the rest of your comments on this forum are more civil, else you'd have been booted off long ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,524
    In this case yes, and as I have a feeling John Galt's post#16 was aimed at me and I have a) no desire to be suspended, b) no desire to be polite to people who despite displaying a very limited understanding disagree with a key part of physics I will not respond in this thread again. My posts here may not be polite but they are usually accurate and contain real science or point out real bullshit, can you say the same?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    All very reasonable, but I do wish folks would realize the aether was dismissed not because it was disproven, but because no one came up with a workable theory.
    As well as the fact there is no evidence for it, there is also the fact that it is completely unnecessary.

    Why not try and revive phlogiston and the four humours while you are at it?

    I have recently (about 6 hours ago) addressed the questions about prediction and mathematics in one of the other threads
    Could you provide a link to that because all I have seen you do is dodge and avoid the necessity for objective testing of your "theory".
    See the 1:49 a.m. and 2:43 a.m. posts on "push gravity-hkyriazi" here in the personal theories section.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,901
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    See the 1:49 a.m. and 2:43 a.m. posts on "push gravity-hkyriazi" here in the personal theories section.
    Neither of which address the question.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I mention in the manuscript the Greek philosopher Parmenides, who argued that "only that can exist which can also be thought." I take this to mean that if one cannot picture a concept, it is not your mind that is at fault, but the concept, which is poorly conceived.
    Thought by whom, though? Is the problem that, because you cannot picture a four dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold it cannot exist? But what about those people who can picture such a thing?

    And what about those people with an IQ significantly lower than average who cannot picture an aether or, perhaps, even imagine the Earth as a sphere. Does that make the world flat?

    The trouble is with this idea (which is popular among those with personal theories) is that it comes down to "the universe must be simple enough that I can understand it". Which is odd. Why shouldn't the universe only be comprehensible to hyperintelligent megabeings from the planet Xanax? Or maybe it can never be understood fully by any sentient being. That is not a logical basis for a theory.

    This is the first and most egregious of the "fatal flaws" you are looking for. You will, of course, ignore this. As you all do. I'm not quite sure about the psychology of this. It seems to come down to. "I thought of it and therefore I can understand it, therefore it must be 'logical'".

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Yes, but what are they "composed" of? That was your objection to current physics. If it turns out that the currently known fundamental particles actyally do have a physical size (albeit smaller than we can currently detect) would that overcome your objection?
    In that case, current physics would have abandoned at least part of its spiritualism, and adopted some part of atomism. And then it would have some problems, because it would have to abandon its uncertainty principle, most of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, have to solve the question of how those particles shrink in the direction of motion at relativistic speeds, etc.
    And you have, once again, avoided saying what you particles are composed of.

    You are the one who is taking a "spiritualist" approach as outlined above. Science has tried to measure the size of fundamental particles and, so far, found them to be smaller than we can detect. It simplifies much of the mathematics to therefore take the size as zero. That is not "spiritualism"; it is how science works: use the data to build working models.

    Finding a size for fundamental particles would not cause any of the problems you claim because the uncertainty principle, for example, applies just as well to particles which do have a measurable size. This is a complete strawman.

    The theory is still in its infancy. Is it too much to ask that a new paradigm not be required to be born fully formed, like Venus on the Halfshell, before it can be considered at all?
    This is exactly what I am suggesting you do. Your half formed "theory" needs to be tested. If you do this and show that it works then there is a possibility that people will take it seriously.

    And it is what Einstein did: while he was developing the theory of general relativity, he tested initial versions against observation to make sure he was on the right track. It is a bit like software development: you don't write 2 million lines of code and then say, "right! let's see if it works!" You write a function and test it. Then you write another and test it. ...

    Perhaps I'm quibbling, but it seems to me that SR and GR are merely mathematical descriptions - admittedly extremely accurate ones - and neither explanatory ... nor deserving of the label "model." To me, a model is something one can picture in one's mind.
    There are perfectly explanatory models. The explanation is in terms of geometry. The same thing that explains perspective or the inverse square law, for example. They are also good models in your sense as it is very easy to visualise how they work.

    However, that is not what a model means in science (nor in engineering). It is a mathematical structure (a set of equations) where you can plug some numbers in and get results out. These results can then be compared with the real world.

    That is pretty much all science does.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I know people who cannot understand how the composition of plagiocalse feldspars in a silicate melt will vary as crystallisation proceeds with cooling. They are, to use your words, unable to picture the concept. However, contrary to your claim, the fault is very much in their minds. The same applies here. Your inability to understand/grasp/accept a concept is not a reflection on the concept.
    I like your chosen name here. Does that mean you believe that A=A? How do you square that with light's dual nature (according to the reigning paradigm)?

    In answer to your point, of course the mental failures of the feeble-minded needn't affect the views of those with more ability. I'm not aware of the reigning paradigm even attempting to provide a deep explanation of much of anything. How good is your mind at picturing "expanding space"? Don't you find it, at least on its face, to be pure sophism to claim that very distant galaxies moving away from each other at greater than the speed of light is different from space being created between them at such a rate? I could go on and on, but the point is that there are no "pictures" at all in the current paradigm, because there's nothing at its base to picture, as it begins by denying the existence of anything which could have a definite velocity attachable to it (such as the much maligned luminiferous aether). It's purely mathematical, i.e., descriptive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    How do you square that with light's dual nature (according to the reigning paradigm)?
    Light does not have a dual nature.

    Are you referring to it consisting of electric and magnetic waves? In which case they are the same thing.
    Are you referring to the "wave-particle duality"? In which case there is no such duality. It is a result of you getting your science education from popular science books and Wikipedia.

    In answer to your point, of course the mental failures of the feeble-minded needn't affect the views of those with more ability. I'm not aware of the reigning paradigm even attempting to provide a deep explanation of much of anything.
    You might have to buy me a new irony meter.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    To me, a model is something one can picture in one's mind.
    Well, to everyone else, including me, a "model" is something that makes quantifiable predictions that can be tested against experiment and observation. For example, the Cauchy stress tensor in classical mechanics is not something I can picture in my mind ( and I doubt anyone else can ), yet it provides us with a pretty convenient model to calculate normal and shear stresses within solid bodies. And that's just one example. To me it is entirely irrelevant whether I can picture something or not, so long as it works and is in accord with experiment and observation.
    Karsus likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Just because I can't picture how fast my computer can calculate e to the first million digits doesn't mean it's the wrong answer either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    All very reasonable, but I do wish folks would realize the aether was dismissed not because it was disproven, but because no one came up with a workable theory. I have recently (about 6 hours ago) addressed the questions about prediction and mathematics in one of the other threads (probably that on "Why push gravity doesn't work"). I respectfully request that you read those other posts, and if that doesn't satisfy you that this theory is scientific (being testable and falsifiable), we can take it up again.
    I would disagree that it has been dismissed because of a lack of a workable theory. A lack of a workable theory would have been reason to dismiss it immediately. Actually, the aether theory was the favourite of scientists right up until the beginning of the 20th century because it offered explanations for a number of phenomena. No, it's that whatever workable theories had been put forth have since been disproven. The Michaelson-Morley experiment set out to test the aether theory by trying to observe aether-dragging, an observable effect of motion through an aether and integral to the theory. Their null-result, and repeated null-results by other experimenters, kind of put the nail in the coffin for aether theories. No aether-dragging means no aether to drag. It was superseded by more successful theories, primarily GR, which didn't need an aether to work. And if you can't observe it, or infer it's existence from other observations, and you don't even need it anyway, why maintain that it exists?

    From what I've read in this thread and your other one on push gravity, you seem to place a very high value on "explanation" over "description". Which is fair enough, I think you want to determine the why of a situation and not just the how. However, I think you are falling into the trap of trying to determine the why, without first understanding the how. It is the observations, the mathematics and the predictions that get you to a deep understanding of how things work. You cannot work down from the other direction, as you're likely to just drift further and further away from physical reality in order to make your model look nicer or sound better. In post #22 of your push gravity thread, you complain that your idea should be judged by observed facts and not in the light of the existing paradigm. Then in the very next post, Strange points out that you haven't yet provided any observed facts for us to judge your idea by, which I think is a fair criticism. That is exactly the reason you need something with a little more substance than a conceptual paper lacking predictions and mathematics.

    Also, just out of curiosity as I'm hoping it may be irrelevant, what do you think is meant when someone says "scientific theory"?
    John Galt and KJW like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I'm not quite sure about the psychology of this. It seems to come down to. "I thought of it and therefore I can understand it, therefore it must be 'logical'".
    However, as long as people like this exist, they will provide a supplementary argument against Intelligent Design.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    How do you square that with light's dual nature (according to the reigning paradigm)?
    Light does not have a dual nature.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Are you referring to the "wave-particle duality"?
    Yes, I was. Fair enough. I forgot momentarily about wave function terminology applying not only to matter but to photons. But is that the end of the story in your view? Are wave functions physical or spiritual? At least waves and particles are physically based clear concepts, and intuitively understandable. I don't wish to place you in the position of having to defend the current paradigm, but how does anyone not agree with Samuel Tolver Preston's point about this sort of terminology being "occult"? We won't explain our results in terms of other concepts we already understand and accept, we'll just make up a new term, like "attraction," and that's supposed to satisfy us. (Preston, writing against "action-at-a-distance," discussed how saying the observation that, say, two oppositely-charged pith balls tend to move toward each other, is due to "attraction," is to provide no explanation at all. I would argue the same with "wave functions." Pure description, no deeply satisfying explanation.)

    What do you think Richard Feynman meant when he said "nobody understands quantum mechanics"?

    In answer to your point, of course the mental failures of the feeble-minded needn't affect the views of those with more ability. I'm not aware of the reigning paradigm even attempting to provide a deep explanation of much of anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You might have to buy me a new irony meter.
    I wonder about the psychology of people who constantly engage in insults. That original quote I gave from Parmenides did not say "only that can exist which can also be thought by x, y, or z", it said "...can also be thought." That means by anyone (and must I specify, "anyone judged sane by enlightened community standards"?). Seriously, must we nitpick?
    Last edited by hkyriazi; January 8th, 2014 at 12:31 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,901
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Are wave functions physical or spiritual?
    I do hope that was an attempt at humour.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Alas, professional physicists think to a man that the aether has been disproven, when in fact it was merely set aside in favor of a mathematical/descriptive rather than explanatory physics, due to no one having come up with a workable concept.
    I would consider it fair to be apprehensive when the word aether comes up, since the concept had been dismissed coming on 100 years ago. You'll need something either incremental but airtight, or an absolutely ground-shattering experimental result, a la Michaelson-Morely, to be taken seriously. Also, I've been operating under the assumption that there is only one kind of physics, the useful kind. Sure, you might be able to come up with the most wonderful, elegant explanation. But if you can't demonstrate, physically and mathematically, what you describe, then you can't really link it to the universe or make further predictions about the universe. You're just stuck with your nice explanation. No actual progress made.
    I agree with this, but I'd add that physics should also be beautiful. Engineering is useful (though even there one can find beauty). And a truly elegant explanation of something, if more comprehensive than other theories, really should be able to yield testable predictions of some kind.

    Maybe the incremental and ground-shattering approach would be to somehow do the 3D computer animation work to demonstrate self-grouping behavior of a gas of gyron spinners. I've made some efforts in this direction, but working alone, in a few hours here and there, yields slow progress. The problem is, a positive result would be great, but a negative result would always leave open the possibility that one needed a slightly different corpuscle shape, or more time, etc. (For example, a very large amount of time might elapse between the theory's proposed "Big Dissolution" and its next "Big Crystallization." Modeling the cosmic microwave background radiation would help to constrain the model, but I'm not enough of an expert to do it.) A secondary effort should be devoted to seeing if the proposed mechanism for vortex stability can work, given radial inflows (see the manuscript for details). I'm now 59 years old, and would prefer that the 7.5 years of relatively constant spare time effort I've now put in were enough, and that the beauty of the theory and its potential (yes, I know this sounds ridiculous) would be enough to encourage some young turks already proficient in Blender gaming to tackle it as a group effort.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    What is a gyron? Can it be detected, and if so, why hasn't it been previously classified in decades worth of particle physics experiments? If it cannot be detected, why do you state it has a needle-like characteristic and why do you consider it "fundamental"? How does it express itself, then, and what effect does it have?
    RE detection, see post #1 of the "Push Gravity (hkyriazi)" thread, specifically its response to Markus's 1st problem with push gravity. For the "why" of its being needle-like in shape, see the middle part of post #16 there. They're the ancient Greek atomists "atomos" - tiny objects that form the substrate of our existence, and which are composed of "gyron stuff". (Every theory of the universe must have at least one given, and this is it for this theory. The point is that, all being postulated to be identical, when they collide they recoil instantly, without losing any energy to internal motions, and we can treat them all as if they have identical "masses." At least that's the initial assumption. Better to start simple, and only complicate matters if necessary.)

    The "gravitational gyrons" (GGs; the high speed ones moving like arrows) collectively produce gravity (but using zillions of other gyrons as well, in sub-sub-nuclear sized cascading collisions - see the manuscript), and also are responsible for maintaining the current structures of vortices (though they must have evolved through a series of weaker vortices, with weaker GG fluxes). I suggest looking at the manuscript, really. It would save time. But, basically, they're similar to air molecules in many ways - the latter surround us completely, have astonishingly high speeds and collision rates, and yet we're generally unaware of them. The gyrons were postulated by Frank Meno to be 20 orders of magnitude smaller in length than a proton diameter, ~c RMS speed, and with ~10^50 of them in the volume of a proton. Depending on one's assumptions, and based on Meno's proposed gyron size, speed and density, they may have average collision rates anywhere from 10^30 to 10^35 per second (see the manuscript's Appendix I).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I agree with this, but I'd add that physics should also be beautiful. Engineering is useful (though even there one can find beauty). And a truly elegant explanation of something, if more comprehensive than other theories, really should be able to yield testable predictions of some kind.

    Maybe the incremental and ground-shattering approach would be to somehow do the 3D computer animation work to demonstrate self-grouping behavior of a gas of gyron spinners. I've made some efforts in this direction, but working alone, in a few hours here and there, yields slow progress. The problem is, a positive result would be great, but a negative result would always leave open the possibility that one needed a slightly different corpuscle shape, or more time, etc. (For example, a very large amount of time might elapse between the theory's proposed "Big Dissolution" and its next "Big Crystallization." Modeling the cosmic microwave background radiation would help to constrain the model, but I'm not enough of an expert to do it.) A secondary effort should be devoted to seeing if the proposed mechanism for vortex stability can work, given radial inflows (see the manuscript for details). I'm now 59 years old, and would prefer that the 7.5 years of relatively constant spare time effort I've now put in were enough, and that the beauty of the theory and its potential (yes, I know this sounds ridiculous) would be enough to encourage some young turks already proficient in Blender gaming to tackle it as a group effort.
    The universe is what it is and has no regard for what you think is should be. It's not up to you to try and impose an elegant solution on top of it. Rather, it's a scientist's job to learn what the universe actually is. I think you're working in the wrong direction, starting out with an idea then trying to find a way to confirm your idea. You should be first observing the universe and then formulating an idea based on what the universe shows you. That is the only way to find success in science. Isn't that the way you have found success in your previous work in neurobiology? Why would you think physics is any different?

    I'm sure it's already been said in this thread, but 3D animation is not a scientifically rigorous demonstration of existence. You can make a simulation do anything you like. Simulations are not constrained by the rules of the universe. You dictate the variables. In reality, you don't dictate the variables. I'm sure you can model gyrons in vortices violating thermodynamics, but that doesn't show that there actually are gyrons in reality violating thermodynamics. As a tool it may aid in understanding, but it doesn't, in itself, constitute evidence or warrant further investigation.

    Now, if you were to classify a gyron and show where their existence has been suggested in experiment or observation, then you might have something worth taking a closer look at.
    scoobydoo1 and Markus Hanke like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    I think you're working in the wrong direction, starting out with an idea then trying to find a way to confirm your idea.
    Very good point
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    What is a gyron? Can it be detected, and if so, why hasn't it been previously classified in decades worth of particle physics experiments? If it cannot be detected, why do you state it has a needle-like characteristic and why do you consider it "fundamental"? How does it express itself, then, and what effect does it have?
    RE detection, see post #1 of the "Push Gravity (hkyriazi)" thread, specifically its response to Markus's 1st problem with push gravity. For the "why" of its being needle-like in shape, see the middle part of post #16 there. They're the ancient Greek atomists "atomos" - tiny objects that form the substrate of our existence, and which are composed of "gyron stuff". (Every theory of the universe must have at least one given, and this is it for this theory. The point is that, all being postulated to be identical, when they collide they recoil instantly, without losing any energy to internal motions, and we can treat them all as if they have identical "masses." At least that's the initial assumption. Better to start simple, and only complicate matters if necessary.)

    The "gravitational gyrons" (GGs; the high speed ones moving like arrows) collectively produce gravity (but using zillions of other gyrons as well, in sub-sub-nuclear sized cascading collisions - see the manuscript), and also are responsible for maintaining the current structures of vortices (though they must have evolved through a series of weaker vortices, with weaker GG fluxes). I suggest looking at the manuscript, really. It would save time. But, basically, they're similar to air molecules in many ways - the latter surround us completely, have astonishingly high speeds and collision rates, and yet we're generally unaware of them. The gyrons were postulated by Frank Meno to be 20 orders of magnitude smaller in length than a proton diameter, ~c RMS speed, and with ~10^50 of them in the volume of a proton. Depending on one's assumptions, and based on Meno's proposed gyron size, speed and density, they may have average collision rates anywhere from 10^30 to 10^35 per second (see the manuscript's Appendix I).
    So, to summarise... (I'm going off what you state here on the forum. I want to avoid spending hours on reading something which I think, based on your description, is flawed from the outset. Correct me if I'm wrong.) You claim that gyrons are fundamental particles which are about a planck length in size (20 orders of magnitude smaller than the diameter of a proton). Gravitational gyrons interact with matter by impacting them and exerting a classical force in the direction of gravitational acceleration. That's a very basic gist, right?

    Now, a neutrino is of indeterminate size. It may be smaller than the claimed length of a gyron, it is unknown. It is known that earth is bathed constantly in massive amounts of neutrinos every second. However, they only interact with matter very weakly. They don't impact matter all the time and exert an observable force. Neutrinos are detectable.

    Why is a gyron, which you state interacts with matter in a very obvious fashion, undetectable when a neutrino, which doesn't interact with matter very often at all, detectable?

    This is the same as arguments for aether. If you can't see it, or see its effects, and you already have an explanation that doesn't require it, why propose its existence?

    I don't find your explanation as to why you identify gyrons as needle-like satisfactory. You are assigning attributes to a thing that has never been seen, studied or classified before. You might have been able to infer these properties if you were able to derive them based on prior observations and predictions from theory, but you don't. You expect them to be just a given. It's just like saying that the teapot currently in orbit above saturn has a gold-plated spout. You don't know there is even a teapot there, much less what its spout looks like.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Are wave functions physical or spiritual?
    They are mathematical models. Something your "theory" is missing (which is why it is not a theory).

    At least waves and particles are physically based clear concepts, and intuitively understandable. ... We won't explain our results in terms of other concepts we already understand and accept
    The problem is using existing "physically based clear concepts" which are "intuitively understandable" to try and describe something completely new and outside our experience. This is why learning your science from pop-sci works is doomed to failure.

    As you go on to say, we can't explain these new phenomena in terms of other concepts. They are new and require new descriptions. Your attempt to make everything work in terms of something you understand will not work. Of course, you will not know this until you produce a model, test it and find it fails. But people like you never do that because your "theories" are purely an act of faith.

    What do you think Richard Feynman meant when he said "nobody understands quantum mechanics"?
    I assume he was referring to the fact it is a totally novel phenomena with no exact counterpart in the macroscopic world. But I don't really know. And I don't really know because I am more interested in science than people's opinions.

    I wonder about the psychology of people who constantly engage in insults.
    It wasn't an insult (wasn't intended to be). Just a wry smile at you coupling a mention of "those with more ability" with your inability to understand the subject.
    hkyriazi likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I agree with this, but I'd add that physics should also be beautiful.
    And those who are not, to use your phrase, "feeble minded" see it as beautiful. (Again, not an insult; just pointing out that different people have different levels of understanding and there is no reason why the universe should reveal itself to someone with precisely your level of intelligence and education.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,614
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    See the 1:49 a.m. and 2:43 a.m. posts
    You shouldn't refer to posts by time as this is an international forum with software that allows one to specify the time of posts according to their local timezone.
    Markus Hanke and hkyriazi like this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I agree with this, but I'd add that physics should also be beautiful.
    If the pure simplicity and elegance of the geometrodynamic law of General Relativity can't be considered "beautiful", then I don't know what can. It is the very beauty of already established physics which first got me interested in the area when I was a kid; mechanical models such as push gravity seem clumsy, awkward, contrived, and entirely unnatural to me. The fact that they don't work and were never accepted into mainstream physics hence comes as no surprise to me.

    Also, it is entirely incomprehensible to me how anyone cannot see the naturalness with which everything falls into place in the geometry of General Relativity; there is nothing more unnatural than insisting that space-time must be somehow flat and Euclidean. Why does no one ever ask how and why nature would force the principle invariants of a connection ( i.e. curvature and torsion ) to identically vanish, thereby artificially enforcing a highly special case of geometry ? There is no such law or principle, and a general manifold is not naturally flat and/or Euclidean - I don't understand why people cannot see that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    I guess people are so eager for an explanation that they'll whip up something "satisfactory" in terms of something else they already have a bit of a grasp on? Physics can be hard sometimes, after all.

    I think it's a shame that more people don't want to spend the time and effort building the necessary knowledge base. I know it's hard, I haven't wrapped my head around relativity yet. I don't have anywhere near enough maths under my belt. But it's fun! And a million times more interesting than any puzzle.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    In order to proceed more efficiently - and I do appreciate your traveling with me thus far - would it be too much at this point to ask that you at least read the introduction to my manuscript, and perhaps even continue reading at least until you find a fatal flaw?
    Two points:

    1. I am not interested in the correctness or otherwise of your "theory"; I am more interested in helping you to understand what science is, what it does and why your "theory" is not science.

    2. There would be no point. People like you will not acknowledge any flaws in your premises or your "logic"; after all, to you (plural) "logic" means "it makes sense to me so it must be right."

    But related to that latter point, what would convince you that your idea was wrong? This is fundamental. What you should be doing, if you want to take a scientific approach, is looking for ways to disprove your idea. That is what scientists do.
    Karsus likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    In order to proceed more efficiently - and I do appreciate your traveling with me thus far - would it be too much at this point to ask that you at least read the introduction to my manuscript, and perhaps even continue reading at least until you find a fatal flaw?
    I agree with Strange that it would be pointless to try and highlight the ( many ) flaws in your idea, as clearly, after having spend considerable effort putting together and publishing your document, you would not be willing to accept them as flaws, since this would render your efforts useless. Besides, I think you can see yourself where your idea contradicts established physics; one of the more obvious examples is your claim that your particles can move at superluminal speeds. Or the existence of "vortices". Or a preferred frame of reference. Or the fact that no mechanical model explains the fact that all forms of energy are sources of the gravitational field, including things like stresses, strains, momentum, fluxes etc etc. Or its inability to model time dilation. Or...

    There would be more, but I leave it at these. Please save yourself the trouble of trying to put together detailed replies to these examples, as that would really only prove Strange's and my point.

    Even as things stand your idea contains a long list of wholly unphysical assumptions, claims and requirements which are needed to make push gravity work. Which is kind of what my point was over on the PG thread; you can't make this work without contradicting and rejecting large areas of already established physics, which really just makes it a waste of time. No one will replace GR by mechanical models of superluminal particles and vortices, or even consider entertaining the notion, at the expense of discarding known physics.
    PhDemon and Karsus like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    All very reasonable, but I do wish folks would realize the aether was dismissed not because it was disproven, but because no one came up with a workable theory. I have recently (about 6 hours ago) addressed the questions about prediction and mathematics in one of the other threads (probably that on "Why push gravity doesn't work"). I respectfully request that you read those other posts, and if that doesn't satisfy you that this theory is scientific (being testable and falsifiable), we can take it up again.
    I would disagree that it has been dismissed because of a lack of a workable theory. A lack of a workable theory would have been reason to dismiss it immediately. Actually, the aether theory was the favourite of scientists right up until the beginning of the 20th century because it offered explanations for a number of phenomena. No, it's that whatever workable theories had been put forth have since been disproven. The Michaelson-Morley experiment set out to test the aether theory by trying to observe aether-dragging, an observable effect of motion through an aether and integral to the theory. Their null-result, and repeated null-results by other experimenters, kind of put the nail in the coffin for aether theories. No aether-dragging means no aether to drag. It was superseded by more successful theories, primarily GR, which didn't need an aether to work. And if you can't observe it, or infer it's existence from other observations, and you don't even need it anyway, why maintain that it exists?
    1) RE lack of workable model, I was thinking of things like Maxwell's use of a vortex and roller-bearing model of the aether to derive his theory of the EM field, after which he discarded it, because it was not, ultimately, self-consistent (all the drawings he shows of it are 2D, for example, and I'm not aware of him having had any success in extending it to 3D - if he had, he'd probably have published it). Also, the decades long efforts by William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) to create a workable aether model (such as linked gyrostats) ended in failure, and in an 1881 lecture he stated:

    “This kinetic theory of matter is a dream, and can be nothing else, until it can explain chemical affinity, electricity, magnetism, gravitation, and the inertia of masses (that is, crowds) of vortices. LeSage’s theory might give an explanation of gravity and of its relation to inertia of masses, on the vortex theory, were it not for the essential aeolotropy of crystals, and the seemingly perfect isotropy of gravity. No finger post pointing towards a way that can possibly lead to a surmounting of this difficulty, or a turning of its flank, has been discovered, or imagined as discoverable.”

    Anyway, what I meant was that no consensus ever developed regarding a specific 3D model of the aether, and neither did any 19th century physicist ever proclaim that he had conceived of one. I don't claim that I have, either, because, while I do have some definite operational principles of the vortices and their interactions enunciated, I haven't done the 3D modeling necessary to see how those principles play out. They'll have to do so in a way that explains simple things, like the fact that matter vortices in motion exhibit inertia, not to mention the spatial contraction and time dilation of Lorentzian aether theory (the aether counterpart to Special Relativity).

    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    From what I've read in this thread and your other one on push gravity, you seem to place a very high value on "explanation" over "description". Which is fair enough, I think you want to determine the why of a situation and not just the how. However, I think you are falling into the trap of trying to determine the why, without first understanding the how. It is the observations, the mathematics and the predictions that get you to a deep understanding of how things work.
    You're right. I do. And I deeply disagree with the latter part of your statement, and it's not just semantics. I'm trying to understand the how, by which I mean an explanation, by which I mean breaking down a complex-seeming phenomenon into simpler, already understood parts, by which I mean the mechanical impacts and recoils of hard 3D objects. Boltzmann wrote (disparagingly and dismissively, IMO) about "the modern fashion of mere description" as opposed to deep explanation. Richard Feynman put quotations around the word "explain" when he lectured about the failure of mechanical theories about gravity, showing that explanation was viewed as naive and too much to ask for, according to contemporary physics. To write down a system of equations that accurately describe, and even allow one to make predictions that are later confirmed by experiment, is not to understand in the sense of the word I'm using. In my view, for example, quantum mechanics has found some rules that work to explain phenemena, but rather than being ends in themselves, I view those rules as being a clue to the geometry and dynamics of the matrix (of vacuum vortices). The equations provide the description, while the concept of the matrix provides the how (and I guess why - simple colliding particles have no free will, and perhaps no "Creator"). In my view, there has to be something at work that the equations describe. In my view, contemporary physics is trapped because it erroneously thinks no "atomos" can exist to give meaning to their equations, so it can never consider that any "thing" really exists. Wave functions are mathematical constructs/abstractions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    You cannot work down from the other direction, as you're likely to just drift further and further away from physical reality in order to make your model look nicer or sound better. In post #22 of your push gravity thread, you complain that your idea should be judged by observed facts and not in the light of the existing paradigm. Then in the very next post, Strange points out that you haven't yet provided any observed facts for us to judge your idea by, which I think is a fair criticism. That is exactly the reason you need something with a little more substance than a conceptual paper lacking predictions and mathematics.
    Well, I believe that Frank Meno, and then I, have succeeded in working from the other direction. The theory makes the one hard prediction that gravity becomes repulsive at large distances (admittedly there's tremendous wiggle room prior to doing the requisite 3D modeling). I think Lord Kelvin would've jumped for joy at reading about this theory. I think Maxwell might have come up with the idea himself had he lived longer. The reason I think no one did come up with it previously is that it involves two rather big conceptual steps. The first was taken by Meno, in conceiving the gyron and their arrow-mode ejection from vortices. The second was taken by me, in proposing that many of them have ultrafast axial spin rates that stabilize their orientation in space, and that vortices exist everywhere (this explains not only gravity mechanistically, but also explains how they can be stable under the onslaught of high speed collisions from all directions - the thing that greatly troubled both Maxwell and Poincare). Perhaps Maxwell, Kelvin, George Darwin, Samuel Tolver Preston, or Poincare may have toyed with the idea of non-spherical Le Sagean corpuscles, but without the spin and the idea of vortices regenerating them, it wouldn't work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Also, just out of curiosity as I'm hoping it may be irrelevant, what do you think is meant when someone says "scientific theory"?
    I am a professional scientist, and I'm familiar with Francis Bacon's view of the redeeming value of experiment vs. faith. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, of course. And I think gyron aether theory is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I mean breaking down a complex-seeming phenomenon into simpler, already understood parts, by which I mean the mechanical impacts and recoils of hard 3D objects.
    I think you are making a fundamental error here - you are tacitly assuming that gravity is mechanical in nature, and hence that it can be broken down into mechanical interactions. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is actually the case - and plenty of evidence to indicate otherwise.
    And btw, the differential geometry underlying GR is equally well understood - since long before Einstein.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Are wave functions physical or spiritual?
    I do hope that was an attempt at humour.
    Mostly not. To me the choices are material/physical and non-material/spiritual. I put disembodied "energy" into the spiritual category. The latter is the same as Samuel Tolver Preston's "occult" category.

    Let me quote Newton: "It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact…That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I put disembodied "energy" into the spiritual category. The latter is the same as Samuel Tolver Preston's "occult" category.
    So you would consider an electromagnetic field "occult" ? That has me marvel suspiciously, which is really quite an awkward thing to manage...
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Hopefully the theory will find not necessarily adherents or defenders, but at least physicists/cosmologists who concede that the theory might be correct and is worth looking into.
    Look, I don't mean to be rude or harsh, but I can tell you with a pretty high degree of confidence that this isn't going to happen. We already have a very good model of gravity ( experimentally verified, mathematically rigorous, and well investigated ), so there is really no reason or motivation to replace it with anything else at this stage.
    Please see the 2nd portion of response #55 for why I view such "models" as merely descriptive, rather than explanatory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Please see the 2nd portion of response #55 for why I view such "models" as merely descriptive, rather than explanatory.
    But then, you need to realise that that is really just your view; I for example don't share that, and neither does the rest of the mainstream science community. See my signature - the explanation is plain and obvious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    I'm sure it's already been said in this thread, but 3D animation is not a scientifically rigorous demonstration of existence. You can make a simulation do anything you like. Simulations are not constrained by the rules of the universe. You dictate the variables. In reality, you don't dictate the variables. I'm sure you can model gyrons in vortices violating thermodynamics, but that doesn't show that there actually are gyrons in reality violating thermodynamics. As a tool it may aid in understanding, but it doesn't, in itself, constitute evidence or warrant further investigation.
    Blender has subroutines, collectively called a "physics engine," that do indeed impose classical Newtonian dynamics (the proposed "rules of the universe") upon the objects one simulates. It does the brute force mathematics necessary to make realistic looking 3D animations for the movies. It is also a research tool of physicists. One can stipulate no forces other than those of impact. If such a simulation could show stable vortices in a system where viscosity exists (and it does for the proposed gyron gas), it would indeed be monumental, though not as important as one showing self-organization with a gas of gyron spinners.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I put disembodied "energy" into the spiritual category.
    So are we back to describing heat in terms of a fluid called caloric?

    And what of light? Corpuscles? Despite its obvious wave nature?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    So, to summarise... (I'm going off what you state here on the forum. I want to avoid spending hours on reading something which I think, based on your description, is flawed from the outset. Correct me if I'm wrong.) You claim that gyrons are fundamental particles which are about a planck length in size (20 orders of magnitude smaller than the diameter of a proton). Gravitational gyrons interact with matter by impacting them and exerting a classical force in the direction of gravitational acceleration. That's a very basic gist, right?
    Correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Now, a neutrino is of indeterminate size. It may be smaller than the claimed length of a gyron, it is unknown. It is known that earth is bathed constantly in massive amounts of neutrinos every second. However, they only interact with matter very weakly. They don't impact matter all the time and exert an observable force. Neutrinos are detectable.

    Why is a gyron, which you state interacts with matter in a very obvious fashion, undetectable when a neutrino, which doesn't interact with matter very often at all, detectable?
    Neutrinos move at c, and thus I consider them to be waves in the matrix (though in a different subnetwork of the matrix than that which carries light waves/photons). GGs must move, on average, at least at speeds of 10^10 c for there to be no observable level of planetary orbital instability (orbits would get larger over time if the gravitational force, under push gravity theories, operating in Euclidean space, moved any slower).

    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    This is the same as arguments for aether. If you can't see it, or see its effects, and you already have an explanation that doesn't require it, why propose its existence?
    I'm not at all satisfied with merely descriptive mathematical models that are divorced from substance. I make this point more clearly in other recent posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    I don't find your explanation as to why you identify gyrons as needle-like satisfactory. You are assigning attributes to a thing that has never been seen, studied or classified before. You might have been able to infer these properties if you were able to derive them based on prior observations and predictions from theory, but you don't. You expect them to be just a given. It's just like saying that the teapot currently in orbit above saturn has a gold-plated spout. You don't know there is even a teapot there, much less what its spout looks like.
    I thought I made it clear that they were the only mechanical way one could explain gravity, and so, to me, the logic was as simple as 1+1=2. Newton, in the end notes of his 'Opticks," mentioned a diffusion, density gradient-based mechanical explanation for gravity, but he couldn't make it work. Frank Meno thought he was able to, with his gyron theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Neutrinos move at c
    They don't because they have mass.

    How does your "theory" explain neutrino oscillation, by the way?

    And does it tell us whether or not they are Majorana fermions?

    Can it shed any light on the existence of sterile neutrinos?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I am a professional scientist, and I'm familiar with Francis Bacon's view of the redeeming value of experiment vs. faith. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, of course. And I think gyron aether theory is.
    What evidence, observation or test result would falsify it?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Neutrinos move at c
    I hope for you that this is not a prediction by your model, because it is trivially wrong.

    GGs must move, on average, at least at speeds of 10^10 c for there to be no observable level of planetary orbital instability
    ...which invalidates your idea from the outset.

    I'm not at all satisfied with merely descriptive mathematical models that are divorced from substance.
    Your satisfaction is not required for a model to work, and for it to be a good model of the observable universe. Because that is all that physics does - making models. That includes classical mechanics as well.
    I on the other hand am not satisfied with models that reject already established science.

    Newton, in the end notes of his 'Opticks," mentioned a diffusion, density gradient-based mechanical explanation for gravity, but he couldn't make it work.
    That's because gravity simply does not work that way. Newton did not have the required empirical data and mathematical tools available to realise that - but we do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I put disembodied "energy" into the spiritual category.
    So are we back to describing heat in terms of a fluid called caloric?
    Nope. I'm perfectly happy to think of that as molecules in motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And what of light? Corpuscles? Despite its obvious wave nature?
    Nope. A wave in a matrix of vortices composed of corpuscles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Neutrinos move at c
    I hope for you that this is not a prediction by your model, because it is trivially wrong.
    I thought there was a key astronomical observation about a supernova explosion (or some such energetic, light- and neutrino-emitting explosion) in which it was found that the arrival of the neutrino burst preceded that of the photons by some small amount of time, but that was explained by photons bouncing around inside for a while before leaving the exploding object. That seemed to imply, I thought, that neutrinos were thought always to move at c. Please correct me, since you seem to know otherwise.

    GGs must move, on average, at least at speeds of 10^10 c for there to be no observable level of planetary orbital instability
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    ...which invalidates your idea from the outset.
    It seems to me that contemporary physics has taken the fact that nothing has ever been observed to move faster than c, and rather than take the attitude of Lorentz and Poincare, of postulating an aether along with spatial contraction and time dilation of objects being accelerated in relation to that aether framework, instead proposed a theory whereby "spacetime" has those properties, and then extended that interpretation to all possible objects, including those that are many orders of magnitude smaller than anything we have, or can, observe directly. (All of our tools for observing them are themselves composed of them, and therefore interact with them.) Basically, I think that "cosmic speed limit" is set by the speed of the corpuscles that constitute the vortices, as all objects consist of such collections of such vortices, and move through that matrix as waves. But for those much smaller corpuscles, there is no such speed limit.

    I'm not at all satisfied with merely descriptive mathematical models that are divorced from substance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Your satisfaction is not required for a model to work, and for it to be a good model of the observable universe. Because that is all that physics does - making models. That includes classical mechanics as well.
    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought classical mechanics was grounded in a belief in tangible objects, i.e., with 3D surfaces defining self vs. non-self.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I on the other hand am not satisfied with models that reject already established science.
    Other than a universally-applicable cosmic speed limit, what established science do you think I've rejected?

    Newton, in the end notes of his 'Opticks," mentioned a diffusion, density gradient-based mechanical explanation for gravity, but he couldn't make it work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    That's because gravity simply does not work that way. Newton did not have the required empirical data and mathematical tools available to realise that - but we do.
    Honestly, I don't see how saying "the earth revolves around the sun because the sun's mass warps the spacetime around it" is different than saying "because our equations say it must, and we've judged our equations to be useful ones."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Neutrinos move at c
    I hope for you that this is not a prediction by your model, because it is trivially wrong.
    I thought there was a key astronomical observation about a supernova explosion (or some such energetic, light- and neutrino-emitting explosion) in which it was found that the arrival of the neutrino burst preceded that of the photons by some small amount of time, but that was explained by photons bouncing around inside for a while before leaving the exploding object. That seemed to imply, I thought, that neutrinos were thought always to move at c. Please correct me, since you seem to know otherwise.
    That "key astronomical" observation does not logically support or imply that neutrinos move at c. If you think carefully and clearly you must see this. Perhaps the best you could infer is that neutrinos travel very fast, perhaps with a velocity of the order of c. In physics, there's a world of difference between "at c" and "nearly at c." The former is required of massless particles, the latter of massive ones.

    In the case of neutrinos, a Nobel was awarded for the solution to the "solar neutrino problem" (google it). In brief, the explanation is that neutrinos can oscillate from one type to another. That, in turn, necessarily implies a nonzero mass. We know that neutrinos travel close to c, implying that their mass is very small. But oscillation tells us that the mass is not zero, and thus that they travel at a speed below c.

    Looks like trouble for your theory.

    It seems to me that contemporary physics has taken the fact that nothing has ever been observed to move faster than c,...
    Contemporary physics takes the view of contemporary science: "Don't invoke unobserved particles/phenomena to explain something that's already explained without invoking such things."

    The idea, which is a more formal expression of Occam's/Ockham's Razor, is that scientific theories are really a form of information compression (say, in the Kolmogorov sense). Thus one important measure of quality, if you will, is the amount of compression a theory provides. Invoking unobserved (and perhaps unobservable) entities degrades that measure; you have extra baggage that buys nothing (other than psychological satisfaction to you personally).

    Honestly, I don't see how saying "the earth revolves around the sun because the sun's mass warps the spacetime around it" is different than saying "because our equations say it must, and we've judged our equations to be useful ones."
    You continue to insist that psychological satisfaction to you personally is the final determinant of a theory's quality. Actual scientists differ. The idea that the universe owes you comprehensibility and satisfaction is ultimately a narcissistic point of view, and frankly, a somewhat juvenile one. The more mature view that has emerged over the last century is that the quality of a scientific theory is judged by its ability to make specific, quantitative predictions.

    One reason for the emergence of that view is the realization that any purported "final explanation" will not be what it claims. One can always ask an infinite series of questions, which can only be truncated in an exasperated "Well, that's just the way it is!" Feynman gives a nice example or ten (see, e.g., his discussion on how to explain how a rubber band works).
    Strange, DogLady, Karsus and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I thought there was a key astronomical observation about a supernova explosion (or some such energetic, light- and neutrino-emitting explosion) ...
    Again, this is typical of you (plural): latching on to information that you don't understand (in fact, completely misunderstand) and claiming that it supports your "theory".

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought classical mechanics was grounded in a belief in tangible objects, i.e., with 3D surfaces defining self vs. non-self.
    Only in as much as it simplifies the mathematics to do so (rather like treating fundamental particles as points). It all comes down to the fact that physics deals with models (which, again, is why you are not doing physics) rather then "reality", whatever that means.

    Honestly, I don't see how saying "the earth revolves around the sun because the sun's mass warps the spacetime around it" is different than saying "because our equations say it must, and we've judged our equations to be useful ones."
    That is not a problem with the model. I would refer you back to your argument about who is able to understand a model to make it valid: those with sufficient education, knowledge, imagination, etc. This probably isn't out of your reach (you seem reasonably intelligent) if you were willing to be more open minded.
    Last edited by Strange; January 8th, 2014 at 05:36 PM. Reason: spelling
    DogLady and Karsus like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Refering back to your posts #55, #61 & #63, hkyriazi, because if I try to use quote boxes we'll have an insane wall of text.

    Name-dropping 19th century physicists is irrelevant. Their ideas stand or fall under their own merits, not the merits of the person who said them. You have avoided the criticism again, experimental results falsified the existance of aether. End of story. If you want to propose aether in your own theory, you need new, positive evidence for it and an explanation for why the old experimental results don't apply to your new idea. Since you are basing everything on the work of 19th century physicists, I don't believe you have that necessary starting point.

    Imagine a black box with a coin slot on top and a hole in the side. When you put in a coin, spaghetti and ants come out the hole. Why does it do that? How does it work? The scientific approach would be to observe it, open it up, study its inner workings and come out with a deep understanding of how it works. Then, armed with all that information, a number of ideas could be formulated as to why it expels spaghetti and ants. Your approach, to stand back and ask why first, will yield different results. You may be basing your explanation on previous knowledge like where ants come from, what makes spaghetti, what role a coin could play. But ultimately, your conclusion will only be based on what you already know, not on what is actually inside the box. What if it's something you've never seen before? What if it's something you know, but put together in a completely different way? You don't know, because you haven't looked yet.

    That's the failure of the top down approach and that's what you're doing here. It is also the basis for criticism against your faith in 3D simulations. I'll state again, a 3D simulation is not equal to reality. I'm sure even I could write some code that simulates gyrons in vortices violating thermodynamics. It does not make them exist in reality. When a physicist uses a simulation as a tool, the input variables are always from measurements and observations. You have made no measurements, so the input and output of your simulation would be purely speculative.

    There's a question you seem to have dodged, so I'll ask again. Has the top-down, why-first approach ever yielded success for you in your neurobiology? If it has not, why do you think it will in physics?

    And another. Why can the neutrino, which tends not to interact with matter, be detected while the gravitational gyron, which interacts with matter every second of every day forever, not be detected? Interaction is the entire basis of detection, after all. The speed and nature of a neutrino is irrelevant to the question.

    And what do you mean mathematical descriptions lack substance? The substance in question is the universe. The mathematical descriptions can be linked directly to the universe through experiment and observation. It is your idea that lacks substance so far, because you haven't yet linked it to the universe.

    And finally, your response does not address my criticism. Just because you can conceive of mechanics for it doesn't make it exist. I can conceive of mechanics for dragon flight. That doesn't make dragons exist.
    Strange, Markus Hanke and tk421 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I am a professional scientist, and I'm familiar with Francis Bacon's view of the redeeming value of experiment vs. faith. A scientific theory must be falsifiable, of course. And I think gyron aether theory is.
    What evidence, observation or test result would falsify it?
    At this point, the only sure way to falsify it would be to show that gravity does not become repulsive at large distances, since that is its only hard prediction. If a source for dark matter is ever found, such that all of the small and large scale structure of the universe is explained by the normal means, with no room left for any such repulsive gravity, that would do it.

    Longer term (or maybe shorter term, given that the search for dark matter has been going on for 30 years, with no end in sight), computer modeling of vortices should be able to yield better estimates on how far GGs can travel than I was able to calculate in Appendix II of the manuscript. But, with variables of size, shape, spin rate distributions, and numerical density to play with, I'll be the first to admit that modeling can prove that it works much more easily than that it can't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Honestly, I don't see how saying "the earth revolves around the sun because the sun's mass warps the spacetime around it" is different than saying "because our equations say it must, and we've judged our equations to be useful ones."
    That is not a problem with the model. I would refer you back to your argument about who is able to understand a model to make it valid: those with sufficient education, knowledge, imagination, etc. This probably isn't out of your reach (you seem reasonably intelligent) if you were willing to be more open minded.
    OK, let's try this. Take two points in space differing in distance from the sun. They thus have different gravitational field strengths. But if space is truly empty, what is it that's different between the two points? And please don't just say "the field," because I'll scream.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Neutrinos move at c
    I hope for you that this is not a prediction by your model, because it is trivially wrong.
    I thought there was a key astronomical observation about a supernova explosion (or some such energetic, light- and neutrino-emitting explosion) in which it was found that the arrival of the neutrino burst preceded that of the photons by some small amount of time, but that was explained by photons bouncing around inside for a while before leaving the exploding object. That seemed to imply, I thought, that neutrinos were thought always to move at c. Please correct me, since you seem to know otherwise.
    That "key astronomical" observation does not logically support or imply that neutrinos move at c. If you think carefully and clearly you must see this. Perhaps the best you could infer is that neutrinos travel very fast, perhaps with a velocity of the order of c. In physics, there's a world of difference between "at c" and "nearly at c." The former is required of massless particles, the latter of massive ones.

    In the case of neutrinos, a Nobel was awarded for the solution to the "solar neutrino problem" (google it). In brief, the explanation is that neutrinos can oscillate from one type to another. That, in turn, necessarily implies a nonzero mass. We know that neutrinos travel close to c, implying that their mass is very small. But oscillation tells us that the mass is not zero, and thus that they travel at a speed below c.

    Looks like trouble for your theory.
    I know little about neutrinos (despite having corresponded with a neutrino physicist on and off since 2006), and the theory is unable to say much of anything about them in its current, infant state. One would have to know much more about the exact nature of the vacuum matrix to say anything about their oscillations, speed, subtypes, etc. But there's no reason to think that it's not amenable to computer modeling.

    Honestly, I don't see how saying "the earth revolves around the sun because the sun's mass warps the spacetime around it" is different than saying "because our equations say it must, and we've judged our equations to be useful ones."
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    You continue to insist that psychological satisfaction to you personally is the final determinant of a theory's quality. Actual scientists differ.
    I'm really not thin-skinned, but I have been a scientist - though never a professional physicist - almost my entire adult life (since entering graduate school in 1977).

    RE "psychological satisfaction to me personally," does anyone here at least see my point - made repeatedly in one or more of these threads - about there being a fundamental difference between an explanatory theory and a purely descriptive one? Here's a good quote from pp. 1-2 of Leonard Loeb's 1927 classic, "The Kinetic Theory of Gases":

    It was about twenty-five years ago (1900) that it began to dawn on the physicists that, after all, the beautiful mechanical explanations which had stimulated so many researches, and had seemed so satisfying, were not infallible, and that such analogies too closely drawn as to the mechanism of radiation, and as to the structure of the ether, were, in fact, wrong. Today physicists seem to have come to the point of realizing that many of the observed phenomena cannot be included in the mathematical concepts of thirty years ago without a complete modification of those concepts. Such a picture as stable non-radiating electron orbits in the atom, a picture which one is inevitably forced to accept in order to correlate many of the phenomena, appears to vitiate the electrodynamics of yesterday. It is possible that a mechanism may yet be found by which such a condition is brought about, and thus the mechanical analogies may be saved – partially at least. At present, however, the trend seems to be away from all attempts at “explanation” and towards the formulation of the observed phenomena in terms of a consistent system of relations, the correctness of which depends on being based on a few fundamental experimentally verified axioms and the proper mathematical manipulations of the equations derived from these axioms. Such formulations are seen today admirably presented in the theory of relativity and in the so-called “quantum theory.” From them, given a particular situation, it is possible to predict quantitatively and definitely what phenomena will be observed in certain fields. It is thus possible to coordinate, predict, and perhaps control the phenomena by these means, but they cannot be “explained.” Possibly it will in the end be the ultimate aim of science thus merely to describe, and in a measure coordinate, the physical phenomena. Perhaps the notion of the “explanation” is a mental immaturity of the past decades of science, just as the ultimate “why” which was abandoned in science in bygone years was a still greater immaturity that the human mind had to outgrow.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    The idea that the universe owes you comprehensibility and satisfaction is ultimately a narcissistic point of view, and frankly, a somewhat juvenile one. The more mature view that has emerged over the last century is that the quality of a scientific theory is judged by its ability to make specific, quantitative predictions.
    You practically took the words out of Loeb's mouth. I hope you can appreciate his lament, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    One reason for the emergence of that view is the realization that any purported "final explanation" will not be what it claims. One can always ask an infinite series of questions, which can only be truncated in an exasperated "Well, that's just the way it is!" Feynman gives a nice example or ten (see, e.g., his discussion on how to explain how a rubber band works).
    I'd like to listen to Feynman on this, but for now, I'd like to say that, whatever else you may think of gyron aether theory, at least it has the unique advantage of having only one axiom worthy of the name (I won't count Euclidean space as something that needs to be postulated, as it seems self-evident): that axiom is that gyrons exist and move. Everything else derives from their motions and collisions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    At this point, the only sure way to falsify it would be to show that gravity does not become repulsive at large distances, since that is its only hard prediction.
    You need to quantify "large distance" for this to be a testable ("hard") prediction.

    If a source for dark matter is ever found, such that all of the small and large scale structure of the universe is explained by the normal means, with no room left for any such repulsive gravity, that would do it.
    That is an odd comment as dark matter has nothing to do with gravity being repulsive.

    Longer term (or maybe shorter term, given that the search for dark matter has been going on for 30 years, with no end in sight)
    It took over 20 years to find Neptune (the original dark matter) after it was predicted.
    It took nearly 30 years for the neutrino (the not-quite-so-original dark matter) to be detected.

    Science is tackling harder and harder problems so it is hardly surprising that it is taking longer to detect the dark matter de nos jours.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    RE "psychological satisfaction to me personally," does anyone here at least see my point - made repeatedly in one or more of these threads - about there being a fundamental difference between an explanatory theory and a purely descriptive one?
    No. If you find it personally satisfying it is an explanation, if you don't it is a description.

    After all, your so-called "explanation" doesn't really explain anything. It, obviously, just brings up a whole load of new "why" questions that need to be answered to explain things. If your idea were accepted, then it become purely descriptive by definition.
    Karsus likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I thought there was a key astronomical observation about a supernova explosion (or some such energetic, light- and neutrino-emitting explosion) in which it was found that the arrival of the neutrino burst preceded that of the photons by some small amount of time, but that was explained by photons bouncing around inside for a while before leaving the exploding object. That seemed to imply, I thought, that neutrinos were thought always to move at c. Please correct me, since you seem to know otherwise.
    Yes, supernova neutrinos do arrive long before EM radiation, but the explanation is trivial and has nothing to do with their speed - neutrinos originate from processes at the collapsing core of the star, whereas the EM radiation originates at the collapsing surface. The core is the region that undergoes collapse first; sometimes there can be a delay on the order of hours between the two. See here and in the articles referenced there for details.

    But for those much smaller corpuscles, there is no such speed limit.
    So you are postulating a violation of Lorentz invariance on energy scales of the order of quark-gluon plasmas. None of the RHIC runs done so far has revealed any such anomaly; the QGCs produced exhibit precisely the kinematic properties expected from QCD and SR, and there is no indication of Lorentz invariance violations.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought classical mechanics was grounded in a belief in tangible objects, i.e., with 3D surfaces defining self vs. non-self.
    Classical mechanics is defined is a set of laws that governs the motion of macroscopic bodies under the influence of a system of forces at non-relativistic speeds. Your attempt at trying to extrapolate classical mechanics to scales orders of magnitude below the proton radius is thus doomed to failure from the outset. I don't know what you mean by "3D surfaces" and "self vs non-self", but that is not part of the official definition, nor does it need to be.

    Other than a universally-applicable cosmic speed limit, what established science do you think I've rejected?
    All of quantum physics.

    Honestly, I don't see how saying "the earth revolves around the sun because the sun's mass warps the spacetime around it" is different than saying "because our equations say it must, and we've judged our equations to be useful ones."
    I really do not know what it is you are trying to say here. The relationship is the same as the Newtonian "it revolves because there is an attractive force by the sun", or your "it revolves because a gyron field provides push gravity". Newton didn't know the nature of his forces. You don't know the nature of your particles, why they are there, or why they should behave the way you claim them to do, or what relation your 3D simulation bears to physical reality. GR on the other hand tells us exactly why the Earth's orbit has the shape it does; it tells us that measurements of clocks, rods and accelerometers between events in space-time behave a certain way, and it tells us exactly why they do that, and furthermore it tells us exactly why what we observe as "gravity" is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of a flat, Euclidean space-time. Don't forget that space-time curvature is not just some abstract idea, but an empirically measurable quantity. See the Pound-Rebka experiment. Or the Shapiro delay. Or any other GR experiment. GR is about physical measurements of clocks, rods, accelerometers, and energy, and how those are related between frames.

    If you want I can give you a more detailed explanation as to how energy-momentum curves space-time - contrary to the impression you appear to be under that isn't just some guy's claim, but there is an underlying mathematical reason. However, you need to tell me how familiar you are with tensors, 1-forms, integration on manifolds, and the Hodge dual - if you know nothing about these, then there is no point in me spending time typing it up for you. Unfortunately that would also mean that you are not in a position to make a judgement about what GR can or cannot explain.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; January 9th, 2014 at 09:42 AM.
    Karsus and hkyriazi like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I know little about neutrinos (despite having corresponded with a neutrino physicist on and off since 2006), and the theory is unable to say much of anything about them in its current, infant state. One would have to know much more about the exact nature of the vacuum matrix to say anything about their oscillations, speed, subtypes, etc. But there's no reason to think that it's not amenable to computer modeling.
    Neutrino oscillations have been confirmed and measured in July 2013 at the T2K experiment. Their speeds have been measured in a highly publicised experiment not too long ago. We know their charge, spin, and have a good upper limit for their mass. Overall, the neutrino is pretty well understood, me thinks; the two remaining big questions are whether neutrinos are Majorana particles, and where their rest mass comes from.

    RE "psychological satisfaction to me personally," does anyone here at least see my point - made repeatedly in one or more of these threads - about there being a fundamental difference between an explanatory theory and a purely descriptive one?
    We see your point, and but don't agree with your claim - GR isn't just descriptive, but very much explanatory as well.

    I'd like to listen to Feynman on this, but for now, I'd like to say that, whatever else you may think of gyron aether theory, at least it has the unique advantage of having only one axiom worthy of the name
    That's completely wrong. In order to make your model work, you have to impose a whole list of axioms - their shape, their size, their electric charge, their angular momentum, their kinematic properties, their density, their interaction cross sections with "normal matter" - to name just the ones that pop into my head now. "They exist and move" does not allow you to deduce any of the other claims you made, just as the fact that atoms "exist and move" does not allow you to predict the properties of - say - a block of iron without further assumptions and input data. Also - Euclidean space is not at all self-evident; in fact Euclidean geometry is a highly special case, so you will need to explain why your metric signature is precisely the way it is, why your metric coefficients are all precisely 1, and why all principle invariants of your connection identically vanish. What law of nature forces these very particular choices ?

    GR on the other hand needs only three basic axioms - The Hilbert action, the matter action, and that energy-momentum is minimally coupled to the metric. All the rest follows through rigorous mathematics. Here I have presented three ways to explicitly derive GR from basic principles, you may wish to take a look.
    Karsus and hkyriazi like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    At this point, the only sure way to falsify it would be to show that gravity does not become repulsive at large distances, since that is its only hard prediction.
    You need to quantify "large distance" for this to be a testable ("hard") prediction.
    Agreed. Right now, it's a qualitatively hard, but quantitatively soft prediction.

    If a source for dark matter is ever found, such that all of the small and large scale structure of the universe is explained by the normal means, with no room left for any such repulsive gravity, that would do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    That is an odd comment as dark matter has nothing to do with gravity being repulsive.
    Distant, repulsive gravity may be GAT's way of explaining the large scale structure of the universe (into walls and filaments with large gaps in between), just as, I assume, the initial distribution of dark matter after the Big Bang was proposed to seed matter's distribution under the reigning paradigm. Again, it is true, my less-than-expert understanding of the latter derives mostly from reading Wikipedia and occasional Nature reviews or commentaries, etc.

    Longer term (or maybe shorter term, given that the search for dark matter has been going on for 30 years, with no end in sight)
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It took over 20 years to find Neptune (the original dark matter) after it was predicted.
    It took nearly 30 years for the neutrino (the not-quite-so-original dark matter) to be detected.

    Science is tackling harder and harder problems so it is hardly surprising that it is taking longer to detect the dark matter de nos jours.
    Fair enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    RE "psychological satisfaction to me personally," does anyone here at least see my point - made repeatedly in one or more of these threads - about there being a fundamental difference between an explanatory theory and a purely descriptive one?
    No. If you find it personally satisfying it is an explanation, if you don't it is a description.
    After having re-read that quote from Loeb that I posted, it occurs to me that perhaps I should be contrasting the pictorial, mechanical aspect of the models I like with the mathematical, impossible-to-picture-in-one's-mind models provided by contemporary physics. Lord Kelvin said that he didn't feel as though he understood something unless and until he could picture it. Thus, he was an inveterate builder of mechanical models. I feel the same way. There was a huge debate about this that went on in Germany after WWI (dubbed "the Bad Neuheim Debate" - see The Bad Nauheim Debate - Wikisource, the free online library)

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    After all, your so-called "explanation" doesn't really explain anything. It, obviously, just brings up a whole load of new "why" questions that need to be answered to explain things. If your idea were accepted, then it become purely descriptive by definition.
    Let's look at this from my perspective for a moment; from that of Gyron Aether Theory. Can we all agree that if we could actually see all of the workings of the universe before our eyes - if we could shrink ourselves down to the size of gyrons - and all matter, forces and phenomena were seen to result from the impacts, recoils, and rectilinear motions (in between impacts) of those tiny objects, then we'd have a complete explanation of everything, save the question of how such seemingly perfectly designed objects came to be, assuming they aren't eternal? If you see a 3-rail billiard shot go in, don't you just say "nice shot"? Do you really have any questions about how or why pop into mind?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,614
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    OK, let's try this. Take two points in space differing in distance from the sun. They thus have different gravitational field strengths. But if space is truly empty, what is it that's different between the two points? And please don't just say "the field," because I'll scream.
    The Weyl spacetime curvature tensor.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    After having re-read that quote from Loeb that I posted, it occurs to me that perhaps I should be contrasting the pictorial, mechanical aspect of the models I like with the mathematical, impossible-to-picture-in-my-mind models provided by contemporary physics.
    Fixed it for you. Luckily most scientists do not think this way. Faraday was unhappy with the way Maxwell took his theory and mathematized it. But without turning it into a quantitative theory, it would just be a relatively useless set of observations and engineers would have had to proceed by trial and error (until someone got fed up with that and took the obvious step of formalising it).

    Of course, the formalization of EM theory leads directly and inevitably to special relativity and hence GR.
    DogLady and Karsus like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    OK, let's try this. Take two points in space differing in distance from the sun. They thus have different gravitational field strengths. But if space is truly empty, what is it that's different between the two points? And please don't just say "the field," because I'll scream.
    The Weyl spacetime curvature tensor.
    And the Riemann tensor itself. And of course all its invariants, such as the Kretschmann scalar.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    impossible-to-picture-in-one's-mind models provided by contemporary physics
    Whether or not something can be visualised by human minds has no bearing on its physical or mathematical reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    After having re-read that quote from Loeb that I posted, it occurs to me that perhaps I should be contrasting the pictorial, mechanical aspect of the models I like with the mathematical, impossible-to-picture-in-my-mind models provided by contemporary physics.
    Fixed it for you. Luckily most scientists do not think this way. Faraday was unhappy with the way Maxwell took his theory and mathematized it.
    At least Maxwell used models of vortices and roller bearings to help him derive those equations. But he dropped them before publication, because they were inadequate (I've seen only 2D renderings, though I assume he tried to imagine them in 3D). He certainly tried to figure out what real stuff lay behind EM behavior, like Faraday with his lines of force, and like William Thomson and others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    But without turning it into a quantitative theory, it would just be a relatively useless set of observations and engineers would have had to proceed by trial and error (until someone got fed up with that and took the obvious step of formalising it).
    I'm not arguing for non-quantitative science. I'm trying to make the case that equations must be about something, and I do mean some thing. They are an abstract statement about how we think things behave. Because physics has abandoned all hope in the existence of actual hard, billiard ball-type things at the base of existence, it is, in my view, profoundly spiritual. We can discuss creating new categories of existence besides the two I've mentioned - material and spiritual - to include wave functions, the Weyl spacetime curvature tensor mentioned in post 81, the Reimann tensor in 83, etc., but I think it reasonable, and in accord with Occam's Razor, to do that only as a last resort. For, after all, what really are they? Must we imagine equations floating disembodied through space? Or must we simply "shut up and calculate"? So long as there seems to me to be a viable mechanical explanation for our world, based on things that I can picture existing, I'll prefer exploring that possibility to shutting up and calculating. Do any of you have children? What do you tell them when they ask you what wave functions and the like are? "Wait until you grow up and can understand tensor theory"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Of course, the formalization of EM theory leads directly and inevitably to special relativity and hence GR.
    I don't think Lorentz or Poincare agreed with you there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I'm not arguing for non-quantitative science.
    Could have fooled me.
    I'm trying to make the case that equations must be about something, and I do mean some thing. They are an abstract statement about how we think things behave.
    Depends what you actually mean here. I think we have equations for both. Don't you consider a magnetic field to be a thing? Electrons are things, and we have equations that describe them.
    Because physics has abandoned all hope in the existence of actual hard, billiard ball-type things at the base of existence, it is, in my view, profoundly spiritual.
    I don't find it "spiritual" at all. Has it occured to you that the idea of hard, billiard ball-type things has been dismissed because of experimental results have proven it doesn't work that way?
    We can discuss creating new categories of existence besides the two I've mentioned - material and spiritual - to include wave functions, the Weyl spacetime curvature tensor mentioned in post 81, the Reimann tensor in 83, etc., but I think it reasonable, and in accord with Occam's Razor, to do that only as a last resort.
    You're trying to shoehorn something into physics that it doesn't deal with. Physics only ever deals with the material world. Spirituality is the realm of philosophy. I think you're confusing that spiritual feeling you may get when learning about the universe, for a direct consequence of physics itself.
    For, after all, what really are they? Must we imagine equations floating disembodied through space? Or must we simply "shut up and calculate"?
    No, we don't need to imagine equations floating in space. The equations represent things. Just because you find it difficult or impossible to mentally picture the things is not a failure of physics, but a failure of the human brain, which evolved only to deal with classical, human-sized objects. As you are a neuroscientist, I would have expected you to understand these limitations. To consider the brain to be capable of visualising absolutely everything would be rather conceited, don't you think?
    So long as there seems to me to be a viable mechanical explanation for our world, based on things that I can picture existing, I'll prefer exploring that possibility to shutting up and calculating.
    Again, it isn't about what you prefer, it's about what actually, demonstrably is.
    Do any of you have children? What do you tell them when they ask you what wave functions and the like are? "Wait until you grow up and can understand tensor theory"?
    I don't have kids, but if I got such questions from children, I wouldn't try and concoct a wildly speculative mechanical explanation for phenomena that have since been demonstrated not to be mechanical, just because it might be a little bit easier to picture in your mind. That would be doing them a great disservice. I'd tell them the truth and try to work it out with them so they get it. How much easier do you think it would be to grasp the details if you had already covered the basics as a child?

    If your kids asked how brains work, would you tell them the truth and work through the basics with them until they get it? Or would you make up something that is demonstrably wrong, just because it is conceptually easier to understand?
    hkyriazi likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Now, if you were to classify a gyron and show where their existence has been suggested in experiment or observation, then you might have something worth taking a closer look at.
    The existence of "ultramundane corpuscles" was proposed at the time of Newton to explain his (entirely descriptive) theory of gravitation. Maxwell said of the Le Sage theory of gravitation: “Here, then, seems to be a path leading towards an explanation of the law of gravitation, which, if it can be shown to be in other respects consistent with facts, may turn out to be a royal road into the very arcana of science."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Now, if you were to classify a gyron and show where their existence has been suggested in experiment or observation, then you might have something worth taking a closer look at.
    The existence of "ultramundane corpuscles" was proposed at the time of Newton to explain his (entirely descriptive) theory of gravitation. Maxwell said of the Le Sage theory of gravitation: “Here, then, seems to be a path leading towards an explanation of the law of gravitation, which, if it can be shown to be in other respects consistent with facts, may turn out to be a royal road into the very arcana of science."
    Oh stop that childish cherry-picking of quotations in a feeble attempt at argumentum ab auctoritate. I could find just as many -- or more -- quotations that disagree with yours. So what? That gets us nowhere.

    We understand that you have this narcissistic need for the universe to conform to your wishes. No need to keep hammering home that obvious point. We will continue to be unimpressed.

    You claim to be a scientist, but a scientist is as a scientist does. And in this thread you have shown a distinctly unscientific attitude. As a specific example, in your invocation of hard constituents of matter, you completely fail to recognize that one could then ask, "what are those made of?" Just because you might be satisfied at stopping at a certain point does not mean that you have reached the end. Again, it's not about you.

    Youi keep arguing about taste, as if there would be a universal agreement about such matters. I find that attitude absurd, especially as you have encountered no such agreement in this thread alone. A true scientist would react appropriately to that hard data. You are so self-centered, however, that you feel that your tastes, and your tastes alone should dictate how one proceeds.
    Karsus likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I agree with this, but I'd add that physics should also be beautiful.
    If the pure simplicity and elegance of the geometrodynamic law of General Relativity can't be considered "beautiful", then I don't know what can. It is the very beauty of already established physics which first got me interested in the area when I was a kid; mechanical models such as push gravity seem clumsy, awkward, contrived, and entirely unnatural to me. The fact that they don't work and were never accepted into mainstream physics hence comes as no surprise to me.
    I'm sure it is. Elsewhere you asked me about my mathematics background, in the context of giving me a tutorial in GR. I mentioned it in post #27, but no, I've not studied tensor calculus (I learned enough linear algebra to make an A and get through an EM course, but never really grasped it and made it my own). But if a non-clunky mechanical theory were to present itself, that the equations of SR, GR, and quantum mechanics were found to be consonant with, would you find that preferable to what you have now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Also, it is entirely incomprehensible to me how anyone cannot see the naturalness with which everything falls into place in the geometry of General Relativity; there is nothing more unnatural than insisting that space-time must be somehow flat and Euclidean. Why does no one ever ask how and why nature would force the principle invariants of a connection ( i.e. curvature and torsion ) to identically vanish, thereby artificially enforcing a highly special case of geometry ? There is no such law or principle, and a general manifold is not naturally flat and/or Euclidean - I don't understand why people cannot see that.
    Speaking only for myself (though I suspect it'd also apply to most laymen), the 3D space I see and live in seems totally "flat" in your sense. (And it would seem so even inside a black hole - not that I'd be alive to know it.) I don't sense "space-time," which seems to be a purely abstract, higher math concept that's part and parcel of relativity theory. Time to my way of thinking is merely a way of relating rates of motion (change), with the fundamental clock-tick being defined by, say, gyron length (which constitutes the fundamental yardstick) divided by their RMS speed (to yield a very tiny fraction of a second).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    In order to proceed more efficiently - and I do appreciate your traveling with me thus far - would it be too much at this point to ask that you at least read the introduction to my manuscript, and perhaps even continue reading at least until you find a fatal flaw?
    Two points:

    1. I am not interested in the correctness or otherwise of your "theory"; I am more interested in helping you to understand what science is, what it does and why your "theory" is not science.

    2. There would be no point. People like you will not acknowledge any flaws in your premises or your "logic"; after all, to you (plural) "logic" means "it makes sense to me so it must be right."

    But related to that latter point, what would convince you that your idea was wrong? This is fundamental. What you should be doing, if you want to take a scientific approach, is looking for ways to disprove your idea. That is what scientists do.
    This is something of a bottom-up theory, asking ourselves what could lie at the base of existence, reasoning our way up to the existence of "atomos," and then asking what type of "atomos" could explain gravity and the rest. And so we shouldn't be too surprised if the ways of testing it are different than usual. I've mentioned the 3D modeling of a gas of gyron spinners and the modeling of stable vortices with radial inflows. I've mentioned the qualitatively hard prediction about repulsive gravity. I also envision the possibility of modeling the matrix of vortices, if and when the modeling of individual vortices is successful. That's the only way I can see to proceed with this theory. Admittedly it's different than the norm. But Lord Kelvin didn't think the Le Sage theory of gravitation unscientific, and neither did Maxwell and many other respected 19th century physicists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,614
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    it occurs to me that perhaps I should be contrasting the pictorial, mechanical aspect of the models I like with the mathematical, impossible-to-picture-in-one's-mind models provided by contemporary physics.
    Mechanical explanations are not explanations. To attempt to explain physical phenomena in terms of other physical phenomena ultimates leads to infinite regression or circularity. A proper explanation of physical phenomena needs to be of a logical nature. While the mathematical models of modern physics may seem incomprehensible, actually there is a strikingly simple principle that underlies it all. I call this principle the "principle of symmetry", and the theory it leads to is known as gauge theory. Basically, there are many possible ways of describing the same reality, and the laws of physics are a consequence of this symmetry of the reality with respect to all the ways it can be described. Note that this is completely non-mechanical, and is a genuine logical explanation. It determines both the fields that exist and the way those fields behave.
    Strange, Markus Hanke and Karsus like this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Are wave functions physical or spiritual?
    They are mathematical models. Something your "theory" is missing (which is why it is not a theory).

    At least waves and particles are physically based clear concepts, and intuitively understandable. ... We won't explain our results in terms of other concepts we already understand and accept
    The problem is using existing "physically based clear concepts" which are "intuitively understandable" to try and describe something completely new and outside our experience. This is why learning your science from pop-sci works is doomed to failure.

    As you go on to say, we can't explain these new phenomena in terms of other concepts. They are new and require new descriptions.
    But, uncharacteristically of me to be coming to their defense, at least physicists are not content to stop there, with a zoo of "fundamental" particles and forces. They continue trying to break things down into smaller and smaller parts until, they hope, a true simplification occurs (explaining many things in terms of a few, or even one, thing). Isn't it conceivable that one might be able to use one's reason to deduce that one thing, and then begin working our way up?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I mean breaking down a complex-seeming phenomenon into simpler, already understood parts, by which I mean the mechanical impacts and recoils of hard 3D objects.
    I think you are making a fundamental error here - you are tacitly assuming that gravity is mechanical in nature, and hence that it can be broken down into mechanical interactions. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is actually the case - and plenty of evidence to indicate otherwise.
    I'm not really assuming, so much as seeing if a mechanical theory can work. I am, though, asserting that atomism is the only philosophically sound, logical explanation for existence. But I'm not stopping there with a bald assertion. I'm trying to show that this specific theory may, if the 3D simulations are successful, solve all the problems previously identified for Le Sage gravity, and that it offers the hope of explaining other findings from quantum mechanics to cosmology.

    As to the issue raised elsewhere by you, Karsus, and Strange, of an apparent conceit in my thinking our minds can understand anything in existence, and that we should be able to picture such things in our heads, I happen to think our conceptual abilities are very flexible, and can probably handle the job. Of course, if I ever find some reason to think that gyron aether theory cannot be correct, I'll have to resign myself to living in an incomprehensible universe. (This makes me wonder why Einstein made that famous statement of his, given that he never achieved his Grand Unified Field Theory. I guess there are degrees of comprehensibility.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,614
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    gauge theory.
    Gauge theory arose from the work of Hermann Weyl (although it could be argued that it ultimately arose from the work of Carl Friedrich Gauss), who explored conformal symmetry as a route to the unification of the then-known forces. This work failed (though the term "gauge" was adopted to describe the later more successful theory). However, it was subsequently realised that if instead of the real-valued scaling factors considered by Weyl, one considers scaling factors that are complex numbers of unit absolute value, then one obtains the theory of electromagnetism (in modern terms, a U(1) gauge theory). Subsequently, the theory of the weak and strong forces were developed as SU(2) and SU(3) gauge theories respectively. However, gravitation (general relativity) can be considered as the original gauge theory, being based on the group of spacetime coordinate transformations.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Sophomore Karsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    194
    I don't understand why you don't see our point here. Making a 3D simulation is trivial. Give a couple of hundred bucks to a game design student and they'll put it together for you. However, it cannot show you anything about the universe. The only way you will get results applicable to the universe is if you provide quantitative input from observations of the universe. Without that, you are only exercising your imagination. This is why we are not convinced when you say everything will be okay if only you get a 3D simulation.
    I am, though, asserting that atomism is the only philosophically sound, logical explanation for existence.
    Physics is not philosophy. And again, the universe has no regard for what you think is philosophically sound or logical. It does not revolve around you. You keep flogging this dead horse, even though we're all telling you why it is wrong. If you want to engage in philosophy with regard to science, give this collection of RationalWiki articles a go. I hope you'll quickly find that although you are engaging in rationalism, formulating logical arguments, you are completely failing at the necessary empiricism.
    Of course, if I ever find some reason to think that gyron aether theory cannot be correct, I'll have to resign myself to living in an incomprehensible universe.
    A couple of falacies in there that I'd like you to fix.
    First, you're shifting the burden of proof, assuming you are correct and expecting to be proven wrong. No, you have to at least try to demonstrate (using something independently verifiable) why you're correct.
    Second, a false dichotomy mixed with an argument from ignorance, either gyron aether theory is right or the universe is incomprehensible. Incorrect. Gyron aether theory can be wrong and the universe can still be comprehensible. Just because you can't comprehend it yourself, doesn't mean it is incomprehensible.
    These are why I think your mind is closed, and I'm hoping you'll realise this sooner rather than later.

    Please answer this question, because I really think it will help you see where we're coming from. Is the top-down, why-first, rationalism-only approach the way you have found success in your study of neurobiology? Can you show why? If it has not, why do you think it will bring you success in physics?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    I'll have to resign myself to living in an incomprehensible universe
    ...or sit down, study the relevant concepts, and work on making it comprehensible to you. "Incomprehensibility" is not a property of a theory, but of the person looking at it. And yes, there is something you can do about that.

    no, I've not studied tensor calculus
    I'm afraid in this case you will need to simply take my word for there being an underlying explanation ( as well as description ) of how space-time gets curved. It's just that I wouldn't know how to explain it without at least some tensor calculus.
    At the same time I cannot help but wonder on what basis you make a judgement of what GR is or is not, if you do not even fully understand it...? Pop-sci articles in magazines just don't cut it, in this regard; the "rubber sheet analogy" is not what GR is.
    Strange and Karsus like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    At least Maxwell used models of vortices and roller bearings to help him derive those equations. But he dropped them before publication, because they were inadequate
    And perhaps he realised they were irrelevant; they may have helped him work out his ideas but he realised they didn't reflect reality.

    I'm trying to make the case that equations must be about something, and I do mean some thing.
    But it has to be what you consider a "thing". I don't have a problem with space, time and geometry being "things". You may do but, once again, it seems the universe forgot to take your wishes into account.

    I don't think Lorentz or Poincare agreed with you there.
    They were both developing exactly the same math as Einstein. It's only that he was quicker to pull all the bits together to turn it into a complete theory. It is possible that they were inhibited by primitive ideas of the underlying mechanism.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    The existence of "ultramundane corpuscles" was proposed at the time of Newton to explain his (entirely descriptive) theory of gravitation. Maxwell said of the Le Sage theory of gravitation: “Here, then, seems to be a path leading towards an explanation of the law of gravitation, which, if it can be shown to be in other respects consistent with facts, may turn out to be a royal road into the very arcana of science."
    Again, you seem to value opinion over data and reality.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    As to the issue raised elsewhere by you, Karsus, and Strange, of an apparent conceit in my thinking our minds can understand anything in existence, and that we should be able to picture such things in our heads, I happen to think our conceptual abilities are very flexible, and can probably handle the job.
    The point is not whether "we" (the human race) can understand the universe (I'm sure we can). The problem is that you insist that the universe must be simple enough that you can understand it. That is where the conceit comes in.

    I guess there are degrees of comprehensibility.
    Exactly. And what degree "must" the universe conform to? Why yours? Why not someone less smart? Why not someone smarter?
    Last edited by Strange; January 10th, 2014 at 05:51 AM. Reason: spulling
    tk421 and Karsus like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hkyriazi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karsus View Post
    Now, if you were to classify a gyron and show where their existence has been suggested in experiment or observation, then you might have something worth taking a closer look at.
    The existence of "ultramundane corpuscles" was proposed at the time of Newton to explain his (entirely descriptive) theory of gravitation. Maxwell said of the Le Sage theory of gravitation: “Here, then, seems to be a path leading towards an explanation of the law of gravitation, which, if it can be shown to be in other respects consistent with facts, may turn out to be a royal road into the very arcana of science."
    Oh stop that childish cherry-picking of quotations in a feeble attempt at argumentum ab auctoritate. I could find just as many -- or more -- quotations that disagree with yours. So what? That gets us nowhere.
    I mentioned Maxwell because he was an insightful scientist and careful about his pronouncements, not because of any "authority" his name wields. I've recently come to view the Le Sage-type theory of push gravity - with its deduced ultramundane corpuscles - as a "microscope" into the inner workings of Mother Nature (i.e., at a scale much smaller than physicists will ever be able to approach experimentally), much as Maxwell suggested in that Encyclopedia Britannica quote I gave (it was from his entry on "Atom").


    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    You claim to be a scientist, but a scientist is as a scientist does. And in this thread you have shown a distinctly unscientific attitude. As a specific example, in your invocation of hard constituents of matter, you completely fail to recognize that one could then ask, "what are those made of?" Just because you might be satisfied at stopping at a certain point does not mean that you have reached the end. Again, it's not about you.
    I, for one, would be more than satisfied to stop at a point where one fundamental 3D object (gyrons in this case, with gazillions of them spread through an infinite space) and its motion were able to explain everything. It's a scientific question whether there's significant (non-infinitesimal) compression upon impact for such objects, as it would affect the energy partition between translation and twirl, on the one hand, and axial spin on the other, as well as the timing during collisions. But as to the question of what they are made, I'd be happy with the response "gyron stuff." One need not even suppose they are unbreakable, but simply operationally so. Is it possible to do better than to have just one axiom - one given - to describe the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Another Aether Theory Disproven
    By Hill Billy Holmes in forum Introductions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 21st, 2013, 03:05 PM
  2. The Taboo of the Aether Theory
    By Geometrogenesis in forum Physics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: August 26th, 2013, 07:13 PM
  3. Aether dynamic theory
    By tomjin2000 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 6th, 2011, 05:10 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •